SCOTUS has already ruled that tracking people's movement over time without a warrant is a Fourth Amendment violation.
back
5 comments
Until SCOTUS rules that parallel construction is a constitutional violation, the FBI is free to track everyone and build cases from illegal data.
well, once they do, kohberger and who knows how many others will be let loose on the public. sets up a hell of a bargaining chip for the feds to prevent it going to the supreme court.
also makes you wonder if any of this would happen if the usage and post trial application of the death penalty were higher. less of a bargaining chip.
We told them to find probable cause, so they found a way to mine it.
Unfortunately, “SCOTUS previously declared this unconstitutional” doesn’t have quite the same sense of finality it used to these days.
“It’s ok if our guy does it.”
-SCOTUS majority
It's really more of just polite suggestion these days, sadly. Except any time they vote against legalized abortion or minority issues. Then the rulings are rigidly enforced.
Legalized abortion needs to be a law, like the democrats promised for decades but never delivered. When the court invents rights then the court can just revoke it. Can't if it's a law.
Abortion was kept legal by not having laws prohibiting it. That’s how laws work.
Also the law doesn’t stop republicans much these days.
This is not true. Many laws banning abortion remained on the books, and the current dystopian bounty hunting system that Texas has was designed to evade Roe v Wade.
This is because Roe decided that a woman has a constitutional right to privacy from her state government while she is pregnant, and that the state's natural interest in the pregnancy only allows them to ban abortion in the third trimester.
Casey was not as unanimous of a ruling, but the assenting opinions made it clearer that a woman's right to an abortion before the point of fetal viability was an extension of her own absolute right to her body.
I firmly believe that the right to an abortion is and has always been granted by the wording of the Constitution, but I also think that the issue is too important for Congress to leave it to jokers like Thomas and Alito.
Courts absolutely can nullify laws. That's one of the major purposes of the SCOTUS. And you think this SCOTUS would hesitate to just declare such a law unconstitutional?
Of course the courts can but in practice never do. The 2A community has been dealing with the courts reticence to deal with patently unconstitutional laws for the last 100 years.
SCOTUS literally just de-fanged the Voting Rights Act, specifically the part protecting minority representative districts.
That's why we recently saw every red state pass new congressional district maps which split up minority representative districts and combine the pieces with deep red rural districts.
We will see how that plays out. In this year's elections, Trump is going to be so unpopular that unless he sends goon squads to the polls, the gerrymander might collapse.
In the future, I would certainly like to see a move to smaller, less-stable districts to discourage this behavior.
Yes and your suggestion otherwise betrays your ill informed idea of how this current court has ruled.
They were practically hand picked to oppose the case law of the two pro-abortion decisions. Their other opinions are broadly _judicially_ conservative which means exactly what you're asking, a hesitancy to nullify laws.
Their opposition to the abortion rulings is largely formed out of a hesitancy to act as pseudo-legilatures. They would not overturn a law that was passed by the government unless it was blatantly unconditional.
I thought a lot of rules and norms would be codified into law after 2020.
Whenever an issue is settled they can't use it to ask for donations. As long as the problem lasts forever they can make money from it. The goal of an organization is that which brings in the money.
That's frankly ridiculous.
Obviously you can just come up with another new issue, make it a hot one, and then gather donations on it.
Abortion itself is one such example of this happening in recent history.
Abortion has been a hot-button issue for half a century. It's not that easy to find issues which inspire so much slobbering from the conservative base - because this one is at the intersection of women's rights, babies, and overbearing government responses, conservatives lose their minds over it. It's also a doomed cause - the recent SC mifiprestone case cited that the number of abortions happening in southern states is now greater than it was before the ban.
They're not abandoning this issue, no matter how many GOP leaders force their mistresses into abortions. It's just too good at mobilizing the base.
Scotus rulings (and the constitution itself) haven't been worth the paper they are written on since long before anyone on this site was born.
No, the court ruled that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell phone records. You're going to get to some weird and inoperative places if you try to generalize from jurisprudence like this. You do not generally have an established right to move without being observed in the US; the very fact that you're required to keep a clearly visible tracking device on your car or motorcycle shows that.
Regardless of the legal status if the data exists it will inevitably be misused.
The current SCOTUS likely doesn't care about that.
Fascism is coming, and we're the slowly boiling frogs.
Why would they care lol