Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Why should they turn over their phone records? Because the investigation is important, so cooperating with it seems sensible.
I don't see it as much of an invasion of privacy unless info from the phone records will be made public or used for some purpose other than solving the leak. Whoever is tasked with going through whatever phone records are turned over will be required to ignore and keep strictly confidential anything unrelated to the leak, right? If one of the law clerks was selling weed on the side and gets caught because of this, it won't be used to prosecute them (or fire them, etc.)? If we can assume terms along those lines (which I think we can), then yes, I think this is fine.
If your employee thought you leaked confidential information, would it be ok for them to demand the private phone records of everyone else in the company?
I don't have a problem with this either, but the first sentence you wrote seems inaccurate. I would imagine your employer would absolutely search your employer-sponsored e-mail traffic and your employer-provided machine. I suspect your employer would not demand access to your personal e-mail accounts or personal mobile device/laptop?
I was talking about my private phone. I thought that was blindingly obvious in the context of that post in this particular thread given the particular discussion at hand, but just in case anybody was unclear, I was thinking along the exact same lines that you are.
Why is the investigation important? This leak is about as surprising as if someone "leaked" the final score of the Utah State vs Alabama game this September.
You’d think. We have had coaches lose multi million dollar jobs for not being smart enough to hire hookers with burner phones. But I would think as you, surely it would be a burner phone.
Maybe those college football coaches were overconfident in their ability to win enough games to avoid problems with questionable activities. I'd also hope that USSC clerks would be somewhat brighter than NCAA coaches.
I don't think Kagan is really interested in upholding this law. I think she has a fundamental objection to the way the Court has been disrupting the status of cases through the shadow docket, and that she wants to leave it alone until there is a full adjudication.
Fish posted about it. If you’d like an article:
If Kagan dissented for procedural reasons, it makes more sense. Conservatives split, liberals against.
Yeah, I wonder how much of this is just procedural, but who knows. This bill seems pretty obviously unconstitutional, at least to me.
I'd think an USSC clerk would've been smart enough to choose not to leak this in the first place, but as we've seen, politics often trumps prudence and discretion.
Thanks. What would have happened if the vote was 5-4 the other way? The law would have been in effect until some future court action? What burden would this have placed on these social media companies? Our slow moving system can be a problem.
For this particular law, I assume Twitter et.al. would have ignored it. The law as written made it impossible for them to comply. Not "difficult", but literally impossible. No matter what actions the companies took, they would run afoul of at least one provision.
Maurile Tremblay said:
It seems like they nearly always save the highest-profile batch of opinions for last. So, for example, I'm not expecting the Dobbs opinion for a few more weeks.
They gutted 50 years of precedent. Again. And without applying the factors that they claimed a couple weeks ago that you're supposed to apply when you decide to ignore stare decisis. Again.
This may be true. I do wonder if whoever is leading this investigation, asked all the justices to turn over their phones, what the court's reaction would be.
This one is irritating. It seems like there should be an "Oh, come on" doctrine that prevents this kind of obvious angle-shooting.
The drafting process is a cycle of sending a majority draft out, getting edits, getting separate opinions, revising the majority to incorporate edits and respond to the separate opinions, new comments, new revisions to the separate opinions to respond to the revisions in the majority, etc etc. In a high profile case, odds are most of the judges have strong feelings about it, and so there’s a magnified focus on little things that may not get the same degree of attention as an opinion on a subject no one really cares that much about. So ultimately, one of the only things that can stop that cycle of revisions and tweaking is a deadline.
