The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[Commando]

I don't know much about Tom Lee, but if he's well liked by this crowd then he's clearly not radically right enough for Trump to consider him.

I don't think he's interested in ignoring stare decisis, so maybe not.

[Commando]

I don't know much about Tom Lee, but if he's well liked by this crowd then he's clearly not radically right enough for Trump to consider him.

The only silver lining is that all the nominees are vetted by the Federalist Society that, while obviously super right wing, is a semi-serious organization. Otherwise we'd be staring down the barrel of Justice Steve Bannon or Justice Alex Jones. Hell- Flavor Flav, Gary Busey, or Meatloaf might even be on the menu for that matter, depending on how the Final Challenge is slanted.

[BlueK]

Neil Gorsuch is a radical?

Maybe I'm still a little annoyed by the "conservatives" who voted earlier this week on the losing side of that 5-4 case that ruled that the police have to get a warrant before obtaining your cell phone records.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Maybe I'm still a little annoyed by the "conservatives" who voted earlier this week on the losing side of that 5-4 case that ruled that the police have to get a warrant before obtaining your cell phone records.

You mean the opinion delivered by the liberal John Roberts?

[Commando]

Maybe I'm still a little annoyed by the "conservatives" who voted earlier this week on the losing side of that 5-4 case that ruled that the police have to get a warrant before obtaining your cell phone records.

How crazy is that? That's like privacy 101.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Neil Gorsuch was being pretty radical (and xenephobic) here:

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-...deportation-of

[Color Me Badd Fan]

How crazy is that? That's like privacy 101.

I'll tell you what else is crazy, charitable organizations (many religious-based) setting up pregnancy crisis centers in California and then all the big-hearted government lefties compelling them to advise their patients about their right to get an abortion. That's like free speech 101.

Moreover, almost as crazy as that is a public employer compelling its employees to give money to unions who then turn over money to the local and state democratic parties. Compelling political speech sounds crazy on its face, but would you believe that all four democratically appointed justices voted in favor of it. Free political speech is like free speech 201.

[Commando]

Neil Gorsuch was being pretty radical (and xenephobic) here:

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-...deportation-of

Yes- we've already gloated about that one.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Yes- we've already gloated about that one.

Wait, wasn't it like 10 minutes ago when the guy who has been putting the Stanford-derived mathematical equation from the Season 1 finale of Silicon Valley into action on you for the past two years said that being a xenophobic radical was a prerequisite to being a Trump appointee? You guys need to get your story straight.

[Commando]

Wait, wasn't it like 10 minutes ago when the guy who has been putting the Stanford-derived mathematical equation from the Season 1 finale of Silicon Valley into action on you for the past two years said that being a xenophobic radical was a prerequisite to being a Trump appointee? You guys need to get your story straight.

Very confusing comment. Need this to be a bit pithier.

[BlueK]

You mean the opinion delivered by the liberal John Roberts?

Uh, yeah. The only conservative who correctly voted to uphold the 4th amendment.

[Walter Sobchak]

Uh, yeah. The only conservative who correctly voted to uphold the 4th amendment.

Gorsuch's dissent doesn't really count... which I noted elsewhere:

Justice Neil Gorsuch, in his lone dissent, expressed disappointment that the third-party doctrine was not more broadly revisited. Although Gorsuch filed one of the four dissenting opinions (the most written in a single case since Obergefell in 2015), his dissent went farther than the majority and was more like a concurrence on other grounds. The technical reason for Gorsuch deeming it a dissent was that Carpenter’s lawyers did not make the property-based argument Gorsuch favors.

Rather than focus on the reasonable expectation of privacy analysis typically engaged in by the court in recent decades, Gorsuch’s dissent argues that the court should follow a property rights-based theory of the Fourth Amendment. Under that theory, Carpenter had a property interest in his cell phone data. Gorsuch's decision to file a dissent may send a message to future defendants that without inclusion of a property-based argument his concurrence cannot be counted on.

[Walter Sobchak]

Uh, yeah. The only conservative who correctly voted to uphold the 4th amendment.

And:

Justice Neil Gorsuch struck an entirely different note in his lone dissent. Indeed, his dissent reads much more like a concurrence. It seems clear that while Gorsuch agreed with the majority that Carpenter deserved to win, he strongly disagreed with them about how the win should have happened.

"I would look to a more traditional Fourth Amendment approach," Gorsuch wrote. "The Fourth Amendment protects 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.' True to those words and their original understanding, the traditional approach asked if a house, paper or effect was yours under law. No more was needed to trigger the Fourth Amendment." Furthermore, Gorsuch wrote, "it seems to me entirely possible a person's cell-site data could qualify as his papers or effects under existing law."

"I cannot fault" the majority "for its implicit but unmistakable conclusion that the rationale of Smith and Miller is wrong; indeed, I agree with that," Gorsuch explained. "At the same time, I do not agree with the Court's decision today to keep Smith and Miller on life support." In other words, Gorsuch would scrap these third-party precedents and have the Court start adhering to an originalist, property rights-based theory of the Fourth Amendment. That's how Gorsuch wanted Carpenter to win.

The importance of today's ruling in Carpenter v. U.S. should not be underestimated. Both the majority opinion and Gorsuch's dissent raise questions about the future viability of two key Fourth Amendment precedents. What is more, the decision itself represents a massive win for Fourth Amendment advocates. Carpenter may well be remembered as the most significant decision issued this term.

[All-American]

Tom is a stud. I had him for IP law @ the Y and if nominated he will surely be the only Justice to have dressed up as Napoleon Dynamite on Halloween and done the Napoleon Dynamite dance on top of a desk.

You don't know RGB as well as you think.

[BlueK]

And:

good to know it was probably 6-3 on principle.