https://www.cnet.com/news/supreme-co...location-data/

The deciding opinions were Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer. (i.e. the liberals, plus Roberts).
It's sad that it actually takes a court ruling to establish something this obvious.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

"It's sad that it actually takes a court ruling to establish something this obvious."

agreed.
the fact that 4 judges can't see it is just another example of how, to often, the Justices are not being honest regarding the clear intent of the constitution. Especially concerning civil liberties.

__________________
.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.
The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents."
..James Madison
.
"Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God."
..1 Peter 2:16

I consider myself far from liberal. Down right conservative. I have a hard time wrapping my brain around the political ideology that says this data should be available without a warrant.

You want to someone's phone data, get a warrant. What's the problem? If there is probable cause, then warrants really aren't that hard to get.

Edit: I must admit though that it feels dirty agreeing with Sotomayor about anything.

https://www.cnet.com/news/supreme-co...location-data/

This privacy case is a huge win for constitutional freedom and conservatism/libertarianism. Glad to see this SCOTUS continuing to move our country in the right direction.

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

I am glad there is at least one conservative justice with enough sense to agree that you need a warrant.

I think the problem is that many people made the 4th amendment about privacy. Which on the surface seems kind of good. But when you make it about privacy then they can claim oh you stepped outside your expectations of privacy are gone. However the the 4th amendment says nothing about privacy. It basically says you need a warrant that is based on probable cause and signed by a judge to search someone and their property. Privacy is just a by-product of the 4th amendment, not the actual intent. Our founders didn't want the government searching people without cause and definitely without a warrant.

__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt

[moderator mode]
merged threads on same article
[/moderator mode]


a huge win for conservatism?
It was the liberals who made this court ruling possible.
All but one conservative voted against this ruling.
But you think it a huge win for conservatism?

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Yes. It was a win, but easily could have gone the other way. That is scary.

__________________
On a more positive note, people still can't order dialysis w/o a referral.

Hear, hear......

Framing this politically is a canard....

on the issues concerning the the Bill of Rights, the conservative and liberal SCOTUS camps tend to pick and choose what they defend. rather than voting Strait down the line based on the intent of the framers and Pro-Liberty.
And both the left and the right camps overall tend to lean pro-government authority rather than pro-sovereignty and freedoms of the citizens.


1st amendment, -Freedom of expression and religion-
the left defends it until it gets to religion and religious speech. the right defends speech until folks makes neg comments about "America" or "lie in the media". And defends religion portion very vigorously... until it comes to Muslims.

2nd amendment, -Bearing Arms-
The left twists and many ultimately want repeal. the right loves and defends it to various degrees at least among the rank and file.

4th amendment, -Search and Seizure-
the left defends it more vigorously most of the time. The right, in it's quest for "law and order", too often doesn't have a problem with LEOs doing whatever it takes to "get the bad guys" and "thugs".

Amendment 5, -Rights of Persons and Property-
Before 911 and during the Bush years, the left defended these rights pretty well, when Obama became Prez, well fogitaboutit. The right (except for the the peleo cons and libertarian wing) have always been lack on this but hated it after 911, because "Law and order" and "constitutions not a suicide pack" . the fat cat right never supported the property portion and has maneuvered the gov't to take private property for their benefit. And at the lower levels the cops taking stuff ... well... "law and order" right?

Amendments 6, 7 and 8 - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions, Civil Trials. no excessive bail, fines and no cruel punishments-
Before 911 and during the Bush years, the left defended these rights very well, when Obama became Prez, well fogitaboutit. the right (except for the the peleo cons and libertarian wing) since forever has generally been "LAW and ORDER" over these rights. can't have these amendments "handcuffing" Law enforcement from doin' their jobs. But after 911, Sheesh Louise, every excuse in the book has been used to deny these rights exist for "certain" people and in certain cases... or at all.... because "we're all gonna die if they do!".

Amendments 9 and 10 - powers of the people and states vs -over- the feds-
Overall the legal and gov't crowds would have us believe these amendments don't apply ever.
And the left, generally, has never been a fan or defender of these... until recently with state and local Pot legislation and using them for homosexual marriage. The right has tried to use them in the past but sadly to often on anti-civil-rights issues. So that's tainted the pool so that the legit use of the rights are now questioned when those on the right have begun to promote them out of more noble causes in the light of the feds march for total control of all areas of life cradle to grave.

etc etc for the rest of the important but lesser amendments.
Bottom line I wish BOTH sides would promote them ALL in ALL cases.
They were are built for all our Freedoms.
Not our political parties, or even our faux physical "safety" or our collective physical provisions.

__________________
.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.
The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents."
..James Madison
.
"Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God."
..1 Peter 2:16

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???