Speaking of free speech... (fwd)

[Jim Choate]

One reason they may not want to rule is they realize the consequences. And
by letting it die a quite death they lose nothing and hold future options
open. This of course would be predicated upon the vast majority of the SC
wanting to rule in favor of IR searches but recognizing there isn't a
realistic constitutional argument to support such action.

It would effectively squash the current action and give them about 2 years
of breathing room. While this scenario is not probable it is clearly not
completely unlikely either.

In addition it raises the interesting question of what would say a 2 year
delay gain? A very different bench? How many are likely to retire in the
next two years?

    ____________________________________________________________________

         If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution
         not the final precedence since it's the primary authority?

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:40:35 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh <declan at well.com>
To: Jim Choate <ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Cc: cypherpunks at EINSTEIN.ssz.com, The Club Inferno <hell at EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Subject: Re: CDR: Speaking of free speech...

On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 12:48:07AM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
> 
> Has anyone seen anything on the Supreme Court and the IR/4th Amendment
> Search issue? It seems like a vacuum.
> 
> If the SC doesn't rule and let it just sit there won't this be the same as
> agreeing that the search is legal without having to face the actual
> constitutional test of issuing a ruling? What happens if they let it sit
> until the court retires (Oct.?) for the year? Are they required to
> re-visit when they rejoin?

They're not required to do anything. But I don't see any reason why
they won't rule by the end of the term.

A "vacuum?" There's been a lot of news coverage, sheesh. Hand-waving,
as usual, mixed with a bit of conspiracy theorizing.

-Declan


Case could define privacy 
Feb. 22, 2001 14:31 ET 
www.dallasnews.com/national/291863_1ascotus_20nat.html

Privacy Vs. Technology in High Court Case 
Feb. 20, 2001 14:25 ET 
abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/scotus_thermal010220.html

Supreme Court to consider whether privacy, high-tech snooping are at odds 
Feb. 20, 2001 04:51 ET 
seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/SeattleTimes.woa/wa/gotoArticle?zsection_id=268448413&t...

High-tech search at issue in pot case 
Feb. 10, 2001 05:45 ET 
www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?f=/stories/20010209/470055.html

Privacy a Victim of the Drug War 
Dec. 11, 2000 02:00 ET 
www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,40532,00.html