Posted on 07/09/2018 4:43:05 PM PDT by LiveFreeOrDie2001
Thread for discussions before & after President Donald J Trump SCOTUS Pick!
And Scalia liked discussing law with Ruth. Go figure.
Probably, yes. And the laws are so different state by state. When I hear of a lawyer who practices in two states I am awed.
Do semi-automatic handguns fire as many bullets as the semi-automatic rifle?
The deal might be that Kennedy would step down well in advance of the Nov. elections if his former clerk were nominated.
LOL. I do love the intelligent conversation, for sure. :)
In the recent cell phone case, the issue didn't just involve where the "papers and effects" were located, but who owned them. In this case, the information was the cell phone data that was kept and stored by the phone company -- and which was owned by the company under the terms of a contract between the company and the customer. The customer, in this case, has voluntarily ceded ownership of the data. That was the basis of Thomas' dissent -- and I think he was 100% correct on it.
So your example of mail "lying on the front porch" isn't a good comparison. A better comparison would be mail that was put into the trash and left outside the house for collection. Courts have repeatedly affirmed that no search warrant is required for the police to go through your trash -- for the simple reason that a person who throws something in the trash outside the home has made an affirmative decision to give up any claim for protection of the material under the Fourth Amendment.
This is one of those situations where I may not like the result of a judge's decision, but I agree that his decision was the correct one.
Yeah the swamp is onboard....another constitutional conservative /s
When the hell did I say I hated anybody!
Well, my heart won’t be broken if he doesn’t get confirmed.
Some of the scuttlebutt was that Trump preferred Barrett, but thought Kavanaugh would be easier to push through before the November election. That’s no way to make a decision that is critical for decades to come. Do the right thing, choose the best, and turn it over to God. (That’s how we got Trump; seemed to work.)
As usual, your arguments are solid, however we differ substantially in one particular. I believe the US Constitution lays out very specific federal powers and that they are the only powers that the federal government possesses. As the 10th Amendment (redundantly) states, powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The addition of the bill of rights to the Constitution has, in my opinion, caused a great deal of evil; even if that was not the intent. We, as a citizenry, have come to rely on those few amendments to restrain the federal government in spheres where it never had authority to act.
Operating within those powers “delegated to the United States by the Constitution” the very idea of collecting data on citizens en-masse would be ludicrous. It’s simply not within those powers.
Unfortunately the existence of the 4th Amendment implies, and has been interpreted to mean, that the federal government does have that power outside the amendment’s narrow constraint. A clear reading of those “powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution” shows that this interpretation is clearly in error.
The validity of the “Third Party Doctrine” has long been contentious, and the Court rightly decided in Carpenter v. United States that the 4th amendment does require a warrant in these cases. A persons papers and effects don’t have to be paper, and don’t have to be directly in his possession... Thomas was dead wrong.
The problem with his reasoning echos the court’s error in Sebilius (as stated by Scalia). It’s an emanation beyond the Constitutional limits of federal power that would “extend federal power to virtually all human activity.” Not a place we want to go.
Gorsuch’s dissent at Carpenter, along with Thomas’ hews an exceedingly textualist line that completely ignores the original intent of the framers. By their reasoning, absolutely ANYTHING the government wants to search or seize is fair game, with the puny exception of things written on paper and carried on your person.
Same same.
So we've replaced Kennedy with a lukewarm moderate in my opinion. Maybe conservatives will be pleasantly surprised by him but we will be stuck with him for decades if he is confirmed.
I wish he was an evangelical but hopefully he is a pro-life Catholic which he cannot be too political as a District Court judge.
Pretty much. Is there any real Scalia type judges that would make it on SCOTUS? Seems like the right of center judges are still liberal, as you mentioned.
From the American Family Association.
Clever graphic.
Blackmun and Souter are Harvard.
I'm not here to teardown my FReinds at Free Republic which so many seem to think is okay to do. I'm here to have a conversation with like minded people who are not my enemy. We are a group that generally falls to the right side of the political spectrum. I wish more people would stop trying to "eat their own" on this forum.
I get your frustration, that above is mine, however, I have seen the world from your eyes BUT I have seen enough of Trump so far that I'm going to trust him. I've been following politics since the day my father declared "that b@st@rd really did it" when President Nixon erased 15 minutes on a tape. I never heard my father use so many expletives to describe a politician and Tricky Dick was THEE political skunk of all time. I was 13 when that happened, I'm 56 now and I haven't laughed this hard at "the politicians" since Ronald Reagan and Trump is better at Trolling the libtards than Reagan was because he uses their own tactics and throws it back in their faces with a Twitter account.
Your answers express your frustration but whether you're aware of it or not they also challenge and goat those who reply to you and I'm not going to engage in that but I will help you find what your looking for by giving you the resources to find your own answers because that's really the only way you're going to discover the patterns of how Kavanaugh "may" rule as a SCOTUS justice and I'm guessing it's the only way you will TRUST an answer to "Who is Kavanaugh?" for you.
I would humbly advise either anger management or stay away from drugs. Or both.
Your arguments are all sound, too. The legal distinction here is not just that the records in question are in the possession of a third party, but they are in the possession of a third party under the terms of a contract where the third party explicitly reserves the right to sell and share the data with others.
By requiring the police to obtain a warrant to search through this third-party data, the court is effectively saying that ABC Phone Company can -- for example -- freely sell a customer's data to XYZ Consumer Data Services without the customer's permission ... but cannot share it with a law enforcement agency without a warrant. This is preposterous on its face. Once the records are sold to XYZ Consumer Data Services they would no longer be covered under applicable Federal statutes governing the telecommunications industry, anyway.
In this case, I believe the U.S. Constitution as it was originally written is clearly deficient in addressing legitimate privacy concerns because it never anticipated a scenario where electronic communications and modern computing capability would enable entities other than law enforcement agencies to collect, store and organize massive quantities of third-party data.
What this tells me is that there are three obvious solutions to the problem (I suspect Justice Thomas would be comfortable with any or all of them):
1. Amend the U.S. Constitution to clarify the issue of third-party privacy in modern telecommunications.
2. Address the matter at the state level through statutes governing law enforcement matters, and at the Federal level for Federal law enforcement (and for matters where the carrier and customer may not be in the same state).
3. Let people educate themselves about third-party data storage and sharing with their phone carriers ... and let them stop doing business with cell phone carriers who store and share data.
If the internet and Free Republic existed in the 1980s, I’ll bet Antonin Scalia himself would have had a hard time getting the support of most Freepers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.