A second time: https://www.rt.com/usa/scotus-klayman-writ-rejected-901/ On Monday, the high court said simply that Klayman’s request had been denied, putting the fate of the matter back for now in the hands of the federal appellate courts. According to Ars Technica journalist Dave Kravets, legal scholars had predicted that Klayman's petition would be rejected by the Supreme Court. “Still, there was a glimmer of a chance that the justices would have accepted Klayman's case and decided the outcome of what is likely the biggest constitutional crisis the Supreme Court has been presented with in the digital age,” he wrote. “The high court's inaction Monday means the future of the phone surveillance program will most likely play itself out in the political theater before the judicial arena. Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the stated provision allowing the bulk collection, expires June 1, 2015,” Kravets added.
Actually, it's about things she has actually said, not things you simply baselessly presume her to believe. Missing the part in either of those where Sotomayor herself said anything supporting government spying. Can you help a brother out?
I'm hopeful that the things she said she will act on. Acting on them is more important than lip service, no?
https://www.justsecurity.org/29409/scalia-privacy-whats-next/ His dissent in a 2013 case, Maryland v. King, is a classic example of Scalia in full outrage mode. In King, the Court upheld a Maryland statute permitting police officers to take DNA samples from suspects arrested for certain serious crimes. Scalia wrote a scathing dissent, warning of the slippery slope from taking DNA for serious offenses to getting DNA at a traffic stop. He predicted that as an inevitable consequence of the majority’s decision, “your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.” Scalia also wrote the opinion that would come to protect millions of pot growers from warrantless government snooping. In Kyllo v. United States, federal agents used a thermal heat scanner to determine that Danny Lee Kyllo’s triplex was giving off so much heat, it could only be growing marijuana. Scalia, writing for the majority, required police to get a warrant to use this “sense-enhancing technology.” Notably, he called it “foolish” to suggest that the “degree of privacy” the Fourth Amendment guarantees “has been entirely unaffected by the advance of technology.” And, in United States v. Jones, he brought together a majority of his colleagues to hold that when law enforcement officers install a digital age GPS tracker on a suspect’s car — here, enabling the police to track Antoine Jones cheaply and ceaselessly over the course of a month — they must get a warrant first. Taken together, these cases show a justice committed to privacy in the digital era.
It's an OUTRAGE! AN OUTRAGE I TELL YOU!!! No, not the cases Denny referred to. MarAzul got his jock strap in a bunch because Justice Sotomayor said the Constitution could be used to address racism? And? The Constitution refers to equal protection; racial discrimination, by definition, means unequal protection. A social problem cannot be addressed until it is publicly recognized as a problem. So Justice Sotomayor said recognize racial discrimination and apply Constitutional remedies? And? IT'S AN OUTRAGE I TELL YOU!!! Well, actually, it's not. And if I were to have to decide whose interpretation of the Constitution was more accurate, a Supreme Court justice with a long resume or an anonymous poster on a sports board with a history of proclamations about things he knows nothing about, I'd go with Sotomayor.
What she has actually said is more important to what you assume based on the actions or inaction of the court as a whole. Unfortunately, I don't believe she can really force the entire court to hear a case simply because she has an opinion on it. She is, as she has stated before, only 1 of 9 (or of 8 at the moment).
The Court refuses to take cases for a number of reasons. Many times, in such high profile issues, it's because they want further evidence to emerge first, so they send it back to the lower courts. Also, as I recall, whether a Court decides to take up a case is based on all the Justices, not just one. You might as well say that Scalia didn't care about NSA domestic spying.
I gave you evidence that Scalia made similar comments. If they believe the NSA activity is egregious, they'd accept a case and rule on it. Surely spying on everyone is a tad more important than the police using a GPS device to follow a suspect, no? Action vs. words.
Possibly. Unknown, though, as with Sotomayor. The Court tends to be fastidiously closed about anything beyond actual decisions. Who voted in which direction in a tie, who voted to accept a case, why they didn't accept a case--they generally don't release those details.
It pisses me off that the justices never actually go out and fight crime. Those robes are pretty similar to capes. All the best crime fighters wear capes.
Shouldn't a better title for this thread be "Do most Americans even understand what is in the constitution?"
Sure, and maybe four did. And maybe zero did. We don't know, nor do we know who (if any) did. Nor do we know why they voted against accepting the case. As I said, there are a lot of reasons why they don't accept a case. Sometimes they want certain issues clarified in the lower courts first. Sometimes they want further evidence to emerge in lower court proceedings. They don't always, or even usually, turn down cases because they're uninterested or inimical to the issue.
The Riley decision was unanimous. Surely there are 4 justices who'd hear a case filed by a US Senator on a much more significant matter.
It would be nice if the Supreme Court were more open about these types of choices they make. In the absence of details, you can, of course, interpret their collective decisions to mean anything you want--I prefer to judge individual Justices by actual votes and words that we see, not ones that you or I imagine.
We know they didn't accept a case brought by a US Senator (which is kind of their job, to hear those kinds of cases). If they needed an excuse to live up to their words, they had it.
This is the case that came to mind when reading SotoMayor's words. She voted in favor of using race to in admissions in this case. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/u...irmative-action-university-of-texas.html?_r=0 It seems like discrimination to me. It seems like using race to make up for something! Last month dviss posted in here the discrimination is always wrong. I commented that my daughter was denied admission to Stanford, for reasons of diversity. He said it never happened. Well it did, but Stanford is a private school and as such, can do as it pleases, at least I think so. Public schools are another matter, but now the court says that is ok too. Sotomayor's word seems to fit the case spot on! "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination." Translation. Discrimination is ok if you do it to white kids. This sort of crap is why we need Trump!
