U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

especially if you force the resource load on an entity the size of Amazon

well!

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Friday that the government cannot monitor people's movements for weeks or months by tracking the location of their mobile phones without a warrant.

In a ruling that could have broad implications for privacy rights in the digital age, justices on both sides of the ideological spectrum said rapid advances in technology make decades-old rules on data privacy inadequate.

It was another in a series of digital privacy verdicts issued by the high court, following rulings in recent years that police cannot use GPS equipment to track vehicles or search cellphones without a warrant.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion and was joined by the court's four liberal justices. He stressed that it was a narrow decision that does not question conventional surveillance techniques and tools, such as security cameras. The court's other conservative justices dissented.

The latest case grew out of a series of armed robberies in Michigan and Ohio in 2010 and 2011. To prosecute its case against Timothy Carpenter, the government obtained cellphone records that revealed his approximate location over 127 days, placing him in proximity to the crimes.

Sure is gonna suck when Roberts becomes the middle guy on the court.

I don't think he wants to be remembered as Melville Fuller II.

Or Souter

The Supreme Court is choosing not to take on a new case on partisan redistricting for now. Instead, the justices are sending a dispute over North Carolina's heavily Republican congressional districting map back to a lower court for more work.

The court's order Monday follows a ruling last week in which it declared that Wisconsin voters who sued over the state's GOP-drawn legislative districts had not proven they have the right to bring their case in court. The justices ordered the court in North Carolina to examine the same issue.

It wouldn't be civil or polite for SC majority to address gerrymandering directly now

tbf I think the problem is they want to be able to address the question as narrowly as possible without having to come up with some kind of specific, correct method for drawing maps (which I actually do agree the courts are not the best-qualified institution to do).

and we haven't even mentioned the Texas case.

good lord the last thing we need is the Supreme Court doing cartography

Yes but Hillary Clinton was as bad as Donald Trump.

x-post-- so you're cool with state legislatures doing whatever they want, even if there's evidence of racial discrimination

but it's not the legislatures' fault! Those minorities have to prove it! Alito said so!

#SCOTUS rules for Trump administration, rejects challenge to Sept 2017 #travelban

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 26, 2018

ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Awful but I expected this outcome.

I guess the crisis pregnancy centers ruling hasn't been mentioned here yet but it's also very bad.

thank god for all that civility we enjoyed before 2016

It's hard not to look at national security rulings since the Truman era and not think the Court would have denied these powers to a president.

It’s also hard not to wonder how it would have turned out if McConnell hadn’t stolen a fucking Supreme Court justice seat in broad daylight

nice to see him publicly gloating about this

I thought you weren't supposed to piss off the other side because of decorum and This Is How You Got Trump

If only everyone had just been a little more civil.

Wonder how hard it was for Breyer not to write "Are you fucking kidding me?" instead of "Really?"

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgoEXvgVQAAWQKW.jpg:large

Awful but I expected this outcome.

yup, ever since Gorsuch this was the likely conclusion.

THANKS OBAMA

at least it was delayed for a little while and this ruling came out just in time for the midterms

They overturned Korematsu in the travel ban case, which is horrifying.

Horrifying because it's a complete fake out, let's be clear.

It’s amazing how much bullshit was set aside back then with the underfunding that Hillary Clinton would definitely win

In rejecting Korematsu, majority basically gave the green light to "hey, Islam isn't a RACE" forever, and go ahead and replace "Islam" with any vulnerable group of your choice.

lets not forget that Maverick vowed that the GOP would block any Hillary nomination for four years

Justice Kennedy's tl;dr seems to be "It's legal, but please stop doing this stuff" pic.twitter.com/bFSNPmyxUa

— Benjy Sarlin (@BenjySarlin) June 26, 2018

xposts
underfunding = understanding, whoops

lets not forget that Maverick vowed that the GOP would block any Hillary nomination for four years

i had actually forgotten about this. jfc

good news is he'll be dead soon!

lol

What the GOP did in blocking Obama's last SCOTUS appointment was outrageous, but those assuming Merrick Garland would have voted to invalidate Trump's travel ban are making assumptions inconsistent with his judicial record https://t.co/EbcQy7q9eI pic.twitter.com/Ba42kfl4s8

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 26, 2018

In that case, Dems and liberals should all have endorsed John Roberts -- he occasionally votes with the lib justices!

Xxp Ready for Justce Stephen Miller?

I really don't give a shit what Glenn Greenwald thinks about counterfactual situations tbh

In an alternate universe something bad might happen, it is true.

GG isn't the poster boy for contrarian thinking like he thinks he is

Glenn Greenwald's constant drone of well-actuallying the libs is getting extremely tedious

There are times when it's worth pointing out a hypocrisy or inconsistency, but the way he does it is just enervating and pointless

"getting"?

Somehow an actual lawyer pic.twitter.com/ZXIGN8HJTp

— Quinoa🖕Appropriator (@MattAlwaysWrong) June 26, 2018

obama almost definitely not have gotten away with it, but i bet if you gave him a crystal ball he would've tried to pack the court.

too bad crystal balls are make-believe, they could've helped a lot!

it's a lot more expedient to criticize him for mishandling the Garland situation. He unquestionably should've recess-appointed him and dared the GOP to try to remove him from the court.

Who could ever have foreseen the GOP would return to power at some point and ruthlessly exercise it

you're crazy if you think that he could've gotten a 60-vote majority on a tenth justice, let alone an eleventh

the only precedent of attempted court-packing in american history happened when the most popular president of all time, the one who was elected to four terms, couldn't make it work with a massive majority in a time of even greater crisis than 2009

didn't he have a filibuster-proof majority for a hot minute, or do I have that wrong