Item — HN Reader

Good: the decision

Bad: the reasoning. They literally weaselled out of ruling on actual data and the implications of collecting it, instead ruling on the fact that TO collect the data, the tracker must be placed on your or your property, which would be trespassing. This makes the ruling useless precedent-wise, and gives the government a simple hurdle to jump over - find a way to attach tracker to person/device that the SCOTUS would not find to be a trespass. This is similar to the earlier case (which they ruled the same on for the same treason) UNITED STATES v. JONES ( http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf )

I really wish they'd collect their balls, and actually rule on the real issue at hand. They even mention in the USA v Jones case that they realize that they will eventually have to. See page 32. They clearly understand what is at hand and why it is important. Just do it already!

2 comments

I think it's safe to say the vast majority of HN readers (and myself) agree with you, but historically, the SC tries to make the narrowest decision possible.

When the SC makes overly broad decisions, they have been ignored by the executive and legislative branches. The most famous such case is Dred Scott v Sanford, where the executive and the legislature refused to enforce the broad judgement that slavery be protected, and popular sovereignty be disregarded, in the territories. [1]

Note that the court is also taking this gradual, narrow approach with regard to gay and lesbian rights, starting with the Defense of Marriage Act and continuing with the challenges of the constitutionality of marriage restrictions in the states.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

This is actually a good thing. They found a way to do the right thing in the context of this case, with as little side effect as possible. No matter how much I too wish for that side effect, it's important to recognize that the less the judicial branch legislates from the bench, the better off we are.