[Praxeologue]

all Scalia is saying he is not sure he, or the Court, really know what is “unreasonable” (searches and seizures) in “the NSA stuff”

it is also Scalia’s way of saying that IF it is agreed by enough of us that it is “unreasonable” then would not legislation be the way to say that

In other words: "I don't now what "unreasonable" means in this context. Please define it for me, legislature."

Scalia is punting, not doing his job as one of the three branches of government.

The Court has not previously hesitated to rule on questions of national security. This is not to advocate an activist Court, just one that does its constitutional job. Its role is to decide what is "reasonable."

[1010RD]

Yep, I want a SCOTUS that is a hawk on the Constitution. Take me back to the Lochner Era and fast.

[Sacajaweau]

What he said is....the court is not privy to the "balance" attending the NSA "intrusions".

And it is the duty of those bringing a case before the court to provide that information.

Very interesting...excellent response.