What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

FreshFish said:
It will be interesting to see what they determine is an "expectation of privacy" or whether that "expectation" is part of the standard or not.
Click to expand...

It will, though I expect the current Court to get it wrong and rule broadly in favor of LEO and against privacy.

I would hope at minimum that if I encrypt my data that constitutes the strongest expectation of privacy recognized under the law. You can still get the data, but get a f-cking warrant.
 
Kepler said:
It will, though I expect the current Court to get it wrong and rule broadly in favor of LEO and against privacy.

I would hope at minimum that if I encrypt my data that constitutes the strongest expectation of privacy recognized under the law. You can still get the data, but get a f-cking warrant.
Click to expand...

They already ruled on the cell phone itself. They even got it right, saying the cops need a warrant absent exigent circumstances.

This is about the meta data the cell phone companies get through their towers.

I'd argue the defendant doesn't have standing. The data isn't his, it's the cell phone company's. They can turn it over without a warrant as they see fit (or to comply with other laws, or to choose to fight those other laws).
 
Last edited:
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

unofan said:
They already ruled on the cell phone itself. They even got it right, saying the cops need a warrant absent exigent circumstances.

This is about the meta data the cell phone companies get through their towers.

I'd argue the defendant doesn't have standing. The data isn't his, it's the cell phone company's. They can turn it over without a warrant as they see fit (or to comply with other laws, or to choose to fight those other laws).
Click to expand...

Oh, I didn't realize that. Yeah, that stuff belongs to the companies. But as their private property the company could hold it back without a warrant, which would then probably provoke legislation that if the company wants to use the public good of the EM spectrum to transmit and receive, they also have to open the kimono.

But what happens if a company advertises to its customers that any metadata concerning their usage belongs to the customer? Then the customer does have standing (and the provider is off the hook). Can a company "move the target" that way, or will Uncle Sam come knocking and say "you had no right to tell your customers that"?
 
Last edited:
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

unofan said:
Take the reactions from Obergefell and replace the words gay, lesbian, or same-sex with race or interracial, and you'll have read their reactions.

And I'm not being facetious.
Click to expand...

It's the same morons -- it's just their offspring.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Gorsuch breaks his maiden writing for a unanimous court. Get ready for a major uptick in debt collector calls as they can avoid many FDCPA claims simply by buying old debt for pennies on the dollar, thus making it their own (and therefore no longer collecting a debt owed to another).

Add it to the long list of things Congress could fix, probably with bi partisan support, but still won't because reasons.
 
Last edited:
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Interesting piece suggesting Trump's legal defense team is not up to the job and is being hired much the way a hypochondriac shops for a doctor: they say what the client wants to hear.

Main takeaway: Trump's defense will have to be political and conducted through the GOP lapdog media like Fox. On the merits, he will be completely outgunned and in over his head, as with everything else substantive he's even brushed his drooling, sebaceous lard-face against.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Fascinating discussion of Gorsuch's writing style in his first opinion, and just another example of why scotusblog is so smart and interesting.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

unofan said:
Gorsuch breaks his maiden writing for a unanimous court. Get ready for a major uptick in debt collector calls as they can avoid many FDCPA claims simply by buying old debt for pennies on the dollar, thus making it their own (and therefore no longer collecting a debt owed to another).

Add it to the long list of things Congress could fix, probably with bi partisan support, but still won't because reasons.
Click to expand...

"Here newbie, write why debt collectors are cool".
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

XYZ said:
Burnt umber looks nothing like Sunglow.
Click to expand...

How do you know your colors are the same as mine?
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

joecct said:
The logical conclusion of more rulings like this is??

http://wtop.com/parenting/2017/06/modern-family-more-courts-allowing-3-parents-of-1-child/
Click to expand...

More kids in happy families.

I mean, seriously, I don't see a parade of horribles from this. It's just a more formalized version of an open adoption, where the birth parents still see their kid.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

aren't there enough kids that don't even have ONE parent who loves them, that we have to get all bent up for some kids that have extras who want to be in their lives.

geez.
 
unofan said:
More kids in happy families.

I mean, seriously, I don't see a parade of horribles from this. It's just a more formalized version of an open adoption, where the birth parents still see their kid.
Click to expand...

Yep. No objection but if he marries both of them, the system will take the kid away and throw the parents in jail!!!
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

joecct said:
Yep. No objection but if he marries both of them, the system will take the kid away and throw the parents in jail!!!

:(
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you. Nobody plays the "just asking questions with a strong hint of silent disapproval" act better than Fishy. I suggest leaving it to him.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

joecct said:
The logical conclusion of more rulings like this is??

http://wtop.com/parenting/2017/06/modern-family-more-courts-allowing-3-parents-of-1-child/
Click to expand...
How is this different than a child with divorced parents and a step-mom? This merely legalizes the step-mothers right/ability to act on behalf of the child's welfare.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

No. We can't have 3 people lovingly raising a child. That's just absurd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top