Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

9. Re: Feds and warrants Mar 19, 2013, 15:34 Beamer
Creston wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 11:55:
Beamer wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 11:30:
Creston wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 11:01:
Okay, wait... So the Supreme Court ruled on something, and now the Feds are taking it to an appeals court?? What? Since when can you take a SCOTUS ruling to an appeals court?


The SC case was a bit open-ended. They said that the government might need a warrant. They did not say the government always needed a warrant.

The government is now testing when "might" comes into play.

It wasn't a very clear or, uh, decisive decision. They didn't say "you can't do this," they said "you can't do this in this case, and you might not be able to do it in other cases."

So now we have lower courts clarifying what the SCOTUS actually meant? Great.

That's how courts work. That's how you WANT them to work. Lower courts spend a huge chunk of their time clarifying what higher courts meant. Higher courts often use vague words for that reason, or they use very specific words, as in they tie something specifically to that case.

I mean, what would courts do otherwise? There'd be no argument, because you'd know how the law applied. Instead there can be arguments about how laws apply, which leads to individual districts and states being able to adopt different variations.
Music for the discerning:
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.


Blue's News logo