General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGorsuch says he'll repeal and replace the Fourth Amendment with something terrific
As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump offered a vague promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act with something terrific. On Friday, Neil Gorsuch, who occupies the seat on the Supreme Court that Senate Republicans held open until Trump could fill it, brought a similar amount of thoughtfulness and coherence to the question of when police should be allowed to conduct a search without a warrant.
Gorsuchs dissenting opinion in Carpenter v. United States is an odd piece of writing. It reads less like a judicial opinion and more like the sort of essay that an overworked law professor might toss off after they suddenly realize that they have a symposium paper due at the end of the week. After lecturing his colleagues for 20 pages about how he has uncovered a way of interpreting the Fourth Amendment that is more tied to the law than the last half-century of Supreme Court opinions on this subject, Gorsuch outright refuses to apply this mysterious new interpretation to the case at hand.
Carpenter asked whether law enforcement can, without first getting a warrant, use cell phone records to pinpoint where a particular suspect traveled over a course of weeks, months, or potentially even years. A majority of the Court Chief Justice John Roberts plus the four liberal justices held that the answer to this question is no.
Until its final pages, Gorsuchs dissent reads as if he agrees with the majoritys conclusion its only at the very end that Gorsuch reveals he is casting a vote in favor of the government because the lawyers on the other side failed to anticipate the specific way that Gorsuch wants to repeal and replace a half-century of established law.
To understand Gorsuchs odd Carpenter dissent, its helpful to understand a brief history of how the Supreme Courts understanding of the Fourth Amendment developed in light of new technology. The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and it requires police to obtain a warrant before conducting certain searches.
The Court first confronted electronic eavesdropping by law enforcement in its 1928 decision in Olmstead v. United States. According to Olmstead, police did not need to obtain a warrant to wiretap a phone call because such a wiretap did not involve an actual physical invasion of a persons property. This decision, which largely left individuals without any Fourth Amendment rights whenever they picked up the telephone, remained good law until the 1960s.
The Olmstead regime came to a close, however, with the Courts 1967 decision in Katz v. United States, which held that police typically must first obtain a warrant before they listen in on a phone call. In an influential concurring opinion whose reasoning was embraced by a majority of the Court the next year, Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote that an individuals Fourth Amendment right to be protected from warrantless searches it triggered when they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
At the time, this reasonable expectation of privacy standard was considered a tremendous victory for civil libertarians. It gave the Supreme Court a framework it could use to apply the Fourth Amendment to electronic communications that police could easily intercept without physically intruding on someones home.
https://thinkprogress.org/gorsuch-says-hell-repeal-and-replace-the-fourth-amendment-with-something-terrific-9238f5568313/
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)At least the old nutty theocrat opposed the government's endless power to search.
lordsummerisle
(4,651 posts)Is he gunning for the Chief Justice position? Gorsuch can't do anything on his own, let alone change the Constitution.
And speaking of which, whose idea was it to have lifetime appointments to the bench?
Back when this was being hammered out life expectancy was 40-50 years. Today this nutcase could serve for 30-40 more years.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Infant mortality accounted for the very low life expectancy in those days. Once a man(and they were all men on the Court)of a higher class who did not live in poverty reached 40, they often lived as long as we do today.
Modern medicine has done relatively little to advance the maximum age of humans. It has only prevented many of us from reaching the maximum.
Many of the Supreme Justices of the 1800s lived to very old age.
lordsummerisle
(4,651 posts)I still want term limits for SCOTUS justices. I guess we'll have to wait for the next constitutional convention...
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Response to GulfCoast66 (Reply #10)
lordsummerisle This message was self-deleted by its author.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Strom Thurmond and Ted Kennedy were Senators, not Surpreme Court Justices.
You are all over the board.
Response to GulfCoast66 (Reply #13)
lordsummerisle This message was self-deleted by its author.
Mike Nelson
(9,968 posts)
Sarandon and her ilk are happy - we are one elderly progressive justice away from abyss.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)LiberalFighter
(51,094 posts)onetexan
(13,061 posts)was ensconsed in the SCOTUS to defend him
czarjak
(11,296 posts)Thats what you are!
PSPS
(13,614 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,858 posts)He wrote a dissenting opinion interpreting the Fourth Amendment. I wish people would (a) read the damn Constitution, and (b) figure out that a junior Supreme Court justice can't "repeal" any of it.
mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)that led to decisions about birth control, then abortion, gay sex, gay marriage, porn....
Its looking like he interprets amendments narrowly, and doesn't believe in rights that are unenumerated, and he also believes in deferring to congress or the states. That my sense of him from especially the last two scotus cases. Very conservative.