Replies

I believe the conservative rationale is that you should have no expectation of privacy and security of information when you are using technology that puts your sensitive/secure information in the hands of a third party anyway.

That would effectively destroy the Fourth Amendment. In today's age, it is not realistic to expect people to not have Internet access or a cell phone. The dissenters' and government's reasoning would allow law enforcement to use your cell phone and Internet access against you. My property should not be used by the government to spy on me. Any reasoning that would effectively nullify the Fourth Amendment should be rejected. The Court got it right today.

If I was Justice Clarence Thomas, I'd simply point out that the remedy for this dilemma is to amend the Constitution -- or even to simply address the issue by statute in the meantime.

FREEPER: In today's age, it is not realistic to expect people to not have Internet access or a cell phone.

GUN GRABBER: In today's age, it is not realistic to expect the Second Amendment to apply to an AR-15.

It always cuts both ways. Clarence Thomas is not an "originalist," unlike someone like Antonin Scalia. He doesn't try to figure out what the Founders of this country were thinking when they drafted the U.S. Constitution, or what they might have thought about a modern application of Constitutional law. He's a "textualist" ... which means he cares only about what the language of the U.S. Constitution meant when it was drafted.