Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

As much as I think the ACLU is right on this, I am very annoyed at their one sided, emotionally charged presentation of the situation. What is the legal argument that this doesn't require a warrant? What were the rationales of the judges on the circuit court in this case? You can't get a clear understanding of the issue from this organization.

The supreme court has a very important power, which is to decline to hear and review cases. I think it was probably the right call in this case, even though I disagree with lower courts ruling that it is constitutional. If the supreme court were compelled to hear cases, it would result in a lot of bad precedent, and the court reserves ruling on things and changing/solidifying the status quo unless it approaches a crisis that needs their resolution.



ACLU creating an emotionally charged presentation makes sense if they:

1. Know the SC is going to decline anyway

2. Want press coverage and as much visibility on this as possible regardless

ACLU knows what they're doing. They're using the opportunity for (good) PR




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: