Slashdot Mirror

But the ban only applies to the federal government. It would be difficult to argue that the clause restricts state or local governments.

It would be trivially easy to argue that it restricts state and local governments. The Supreme Court has repeated ruled that protections in the Constitution apply to the states as well as the federal government. They just reaffirmed this last week (9-0 decision that the 8th Amendment applies to the states).

"Sorry, it's against our religious views to serve Nazis."

-Twitter

From an amicus brief from some linguists that agrees with the down-modded post:

The term "bear arms" is an idiom that means to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight.

As a sig I've seen around here notes, there is no -1 disagree moderation option.

No according to the farmer that did it, he figured that the seed grown during the regular season would have a large amount of GMO protected seeds. So he went down to the local COOP and purchased seed, he then planted that seed to raise another season of crops.
Here is a good article on the Supreme Court decision http://www.scotusblog.com/2013...

in your case, a US judge can certainly order a US entity to do something which would violate another countries laws, and its up to the entity themselves to resolve that conflict.

Which is exactly what they're doing here.

Go read the legal briefs submitted by various nations and international organizations. The European Commission, the government of the United Kingdom, the government of Ireland, the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce, the French Department of Business, and even the United Nations legal arm for data privacy. All of them said that if the US enforced the order they'd be violating all kinds of international, law, including violating treaties made by the US government. The Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, MLAT, provides a method to get the data legally.

Urgent MLAT requests are handled immediately. Ireland has already said if the DoJ filed an MLAT request they would act immediately. But the DoJ is looking for powers that bypass judicial review and international legal review. It is a power grab, which they readily admit in the transcript linked to above. Scroll down to page 23 when asked why they can't use MLAT requests.

It is rather terrifying that they are so brazen about it in the SCOTUS arguments. They state that they could use MLAT, but they want the ability to bypass the courts; if they win the precedent: "We don't have to go to a court first. We just issue the instrument. The provider has to make disclosures."

Good summary. The links to the full arguments are up along with links to the other details. Scotsblog post generally, and today's transcript specifically.

The list of amici curiae is impressive. The European Commission, the government of the United Kingdom, the government of Ireland, the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce, the French Department of Business, and even the United Nations legal arm for data privacy. All of them said that if the US enforced the order they'd be violating all kinds of international, law, including violating treaties made by the US regarding preserving privacy of some of the information the government is demanding. The Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, MLAT,

They also all state point #2 that you made, which is the same thing Microsoft says: There is already a procedure for this, done through international treaty, by filing an MLAT request. The procedure is followed all the time and does not take years like the federal government is suggesting. Nations have a solid history of acting on urgent request immediately, generally as soon as the call or email or request is made. Ireland's government has stated at every level of the case that they would immediately act on the request if the justice department would follow the international treaties that are already in place.

The government lawyer stated EXACTLY the reason they want this on page 23 of the transcript. Justice Alito asked why the government didn't use any of the conventional methods to get the data. Government's reply: " We don't have to go to a court first. We just issue the instrument. The provider has to make disclosures. " They freely admit that this is an attempt to grab information in a way that bypasses the courts, bypasses international treaties and MLAT requirements and extraterritorial law, and bypasses the US due process requirements. It is nothing more or less than a power grab to bypass legal protections.

No dude. The Democrats are bound to win if they run on

1) Gun control
2) Hate speech bans for people who use the wrong pronoun or argue with liberals on social media
3) Title II regulation for ISPs
4) Unlimited illegal immigration to force down working class wages
5) Punishing people who refuse to bake cake for gay weddings

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-c...

All this 'sticking up for the working man' stuff is so last century.

I'm rather curious about this as well. I haven't been following this thing very closely, so in short: What did they do that was illegal

If they paid money for ads in support of or against a particular political candidate, they were in violation of Title 52 United States Code Sec. 30121. The constitutionality of this statute was challenged on First Amendment grounds, but the U.S. Supreme Court, in refusing to hear an appeal, let stand a ruling by a federal court of appeals that found the statute to be enforceable.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is a clear violation of the first amendment.

I wish the Supreme Court saw it this way, but they have already considered this matter in refusing to hear a case from a lower court which had decided that restrictions of foreign nationals' contributions or attempts to influence U.S. elections is not unconstitutional. (See Bluman vs. FEC.)

The actual facts of this case are available for anyone to read.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015.10.28-Petition-for-Certiorari_149252037_1-2.pdf

But i seriously doubt you are able to or would even consider it with your ridiculous pro-apple bias.
No wonder people think apple is a cult.

Citation? Date range?

Politifact claims it's the 6th, 11th, then 9th.
Findlaw also says it's the 6th.
In 2015 it looks like it was the 11th, and in 2014 it looks like the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th and 11th came ahead of the 9th in reversals.

But Fox news agrees with you, even though the year they select, 2012, it was not the most overturned, with the 1st, 6th, 8th, and 11th having more (the 9th was tied with the 5th).

I'm not sure how this counts as tap dancing...

Citation? Date range?

Politifact claims it's the 6th, 11th, then 9th.
Findlaw also says it's the 6th.
In 2015 it looks like it was the 11th, and in 2014 it looks like the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th and 11th came ahead of the 9th in reversals.

But Fox news agrees with you, even though the year they select, 2012, it was not the most overturned, with the 1st, 6th, 8th, and 11th having more (the 9th was tied with the 5th).

I'm not sure how this counts as tap dancing...

Sorry, that's just too far out of character for the Supreme Court - to actually do something, rather than dodging the question.

Most of the cases the general public does not follow but there is always news when the court makes a decision. Some cases in recent memory that are Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District where the court rules unanimous that a school district must offer "individualized education program" to people with disabilities. The court has heard arguments in Microsoft v Baker about class certification in the case of the Xbox disc failures.

"USA has no institutions that oppress whites in favour of blacks"

That's simply untrue.

... remember that unions and businesses are people, too, you insensitive clods.

Attorneys fees aren't awarded in garden-variety troll cases, and this decision does absolutely nothing to change that. Here, at a minimum, the plaintiff's attorneys:
    1. Filed suit on a patent that (even by troll standards) was almost certainly invalid after the Supreme Court's Alice decision (issued the year before the suit was filed).
    2. Filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas when there was not even the thinnest veneer of a basis to do so.
    3. After this defendant refused to settle for small potatoes like the others, plaintiff first offered a covenant not to sue (which also would have made the current case go away), then when defendant announced its intent to seek fees, litigated the case for another year and a half in two different states and ran up defendant's costs even more.

This might give pause to attorneys taking on a handful of really egregious cases around the margins, but IMO isn't going to take very much of a bite out of the troll industry in general -- the game will just shift to the next-higher-quality tier of patents.

Now, the TC Heartland venue case that the Supreme Court has decided to take? That's the one that could significantly impact the troll community -- keep an eye on it.

The patented parts of the product were not produced in the US

Um, one of them actually was. Whether that's enough to constitute infringement of Promega's U.S. patent is the exact question the Supreme Court is taking up:

Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that supplying a single, commodity component of a multi-component invention from the United States is an infringing act under 35 U.S.C. 271(f)(1), exposing the manufacturer to liability for all worldwide sales.

Didn't Citizen's United make it legal for a corporation to support a political candidate in any way they choose?

No.*

Twitter can refuse to provide service for the opposition (delete every post) if it choose to do so, and there ain't shit any one can do about it.

Yes.

* No. Citizen's United v. FCC (assuming that's what you're talking about) in 2007 is often misrepresented and there's a lot of misinformation about the case and the ruling. As I'm unable to guess what you believe to be true (but can infer that you don't actually understand the case or the ruling), all I can do is suggest that you take a few minutes to get to understand it. It's one of those things that people seem keen on lying about and lots of people don't bother actually doing the research themselves. Instead of looking, they just believe what they're told. Why they'd want to listen to people frothing at the mouth and with a history of dishonesty is beyond me.

If you're actually curious, you can do some reading at Wikipedia. I've not bothered reading the article but, if it's like many others, I'd use it as a jump-off point and then find some more information. It's a little complicated but it's not terribly difficult to get the gist. However, I can assure you that it doesn't actually "make it legal for a corporation to support a political candidate in any way they choose." No, not even remotely.

Actually, I've got a free minute or ten. Let me see what I can find that's actually readable and accurate.

First the Wikipedia Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is objective and appears to be factual: http://missoulian.com/news/opi...
*ALL* the information: http://www.scotusblog.com/case...

The second link is probably the better of the two, for simple layman's understanding, and then the Wiki is "fine" for a good read for more information. However, if you really want the meat of the ruling then the final link is ideal. That link has lots of other links to read the ruling, amicus briefs, opinions from the courts, the actual documents, and things like that. It's a lot to digest, I've actually read some of it. SCOTUSblog is one of my favorite sites and I check/refer to it often. It's surprisingly handy.

Over the years, I've noticed that people are keen on being dishonest, lying by omission, misrepresenting, and intentionally advocating incorrect inferences. Often it's the loudest and most zealous people who do that, sometimes even going far enough to fabricate data. Rather than take them at their word, rather than rely on journalists, rather than rely on popular opinion, I've just made the effort to go find out the facts (as much as I can). I'd like to say it works well but I don't think it really does because it does nothing to actually help encourage others to do the same.

Basically, by saying they will vote no to any candidate- the republicans have tossed out the constitution. Don't they see that the result of this could be entire decades when every justice and every cabinet post is filibustered and never filled.

Really ? You must have a different grasp of what the constitution says and what the supreme court has said about it than anyone else does

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014...

Now go off and whine how it's unfair.

There are several very important cases coming up for the supreme court, including immigration, abortion, and unions. Any of these Supreme Court decisions that end up tied at 4-4 means that the lower court's decision will stand.

And since there are so many districts, the fact that the decision stands in only that district is really of no consequence.

You accidentally left that off, right?

There are several very important cases coming up for the supreme court, including immigration, abortion, and unions. Any of these Supreme Court decisions that end up tied at 4-4 means that the lower court's decision will stand.

And since there are so many districts, the fact that the decision stands in only that district is really of no consequence.

You accidentally left that off, right?

There are several very important cases coming up for the supreme court, including immigration, abortion, and unions. Any of these Supreme Court decisions that end up tied at 4-4 means that the lower court's decision will stand.

And since there are so many districts, the fact that the decision stands in only that district is really of no consequence.

You accidentally left that off, right?

Actually the Supreme Court said you couldn't do that for shorter recesses, namely three or fewer days. So as long as the Senate stays in session, every three days, they don't actually have to nominate anybody, even if nothing else is done. We are going to have a lot of bored Senators on our hands though. But if McConnell says, it is done. http://www.scotusblog.com/2014...

There are several very important cases coming up for the supreme court, including immigration, abortion, and unions. Any of these Supreme Court decisions that end up tied at 4-4 means that the lower court's decision will stand.

There are several very important cases coming up for the supreme court, including immigration, abortion, and unions. Any of these Supreme Court decisions that end up tied at 4-4 means that the lower court's decision will stand.

There are several very important cases coming up for the supreme court, including immigration, abortion, and unions. Any of these Supreme Court decisions that end up tied at 4-4 means that the lower court's decision will stand.

I bet they would include something that actually seems like it should be.

You assume their judgement will not be bent by the needs of the states.

I read from this article a little notation, about how some Supreme court justices may want to re-consider the case due to the change in economic climate (regarding internet commerce).

It sounds a bit legislative to me, But I guess that is the nature of our newly Politicized Supreme court, which can now be viewed a progressive-demo-socialist corrupted institution (No longer so impartial or objective, certainly not indifferent anymore to what elected legislatures of certain political parties want.).

justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurrence. In addition to his “unqualified join and assent” to the “complete and correct” opinion of the Court, he wrote separately to emphasize his view that the Court should overturn Quill v. North Dakota and allow the states to impose sales taxes directly on the business of online retailers. The opinion is much more harmful now to the states than when it was decided; Justice Kennedy reports mail-order commerce of $180 million at the time of Quill (1992 – a few years before internet commerce), compared to more than three trillion dollars in 2008. Given the increased harm and the transformational effect on our society and economy of electronic communication, he calls for the Court to reconsider Quill as soon as possible.

If the Supreme Court has held in Riley v. California that a much less intrusive law is unconstitutional, then shouldn't their reasoning apply here? If the requirement for obtaining any private information held in a phone is a search warrant, and an owner can be compelled to provide access when that search warrant is presented, then just do that. The most likely application of this proposed law is a way to avoid obtaining a search warrant. And wouldn't any argument that timeliness of access is important require probable cause, which, again, the likely application of this law would not have?

Still illegal and likely unconstitutional.

We'll see about that.

I came here to post popehat. My legal blog recommendations:
* Popehat insightful/snarky legal commentary from someone who used to be a federal prosecutor and is now in private practice.
* Lowering the Bar: hilarious legal humor. Recent topics: Hulk Hogan, Donald Trump, drone law, argle-bargle.
*Papers, Please: Lots of TSA and similar topics. Their MO is to file expansive FOIA requests to intelligence and law enforcement agencies, then write stridently about how they were rejected.
* Jetsetting Terrorist: trials and tribulations of somebody erroneously on the do not fly list. (not updated often)
* Taking Sense Away: blog written by TSA employee (no longer updated, but fun to read the archives).
* SCOTUSblog: blow-by-blow news of goings-on at the supreme court. super nerdy.
* Supreme Court Haiku: summaries of supreme court decisions, in haiku form.
* Volokh Conspiracy: insightful pieces on constitutional law and similar topics. primarily conservative, primarily written by law profs.

wow, with all these things in my feedly, it's amazing I get any work done!

Well, reasonable suspicion is a legal standard. Reasonable suspicion requires articulatable facts about a specific individual at a specific time.

It's the same standard by which a vehicle stop occurs, so you can definitely detain someone briefly with RS. "I saw that guy swerve. I have reasonable suspicion he's drunk."

SCOTUSblog has some analysis of the opinions. I hadn't fully read the opinions and analysis yet (I know, I know RTFA? Psssh! But hey at least I did better than /. and most other news agencies in getting the facts straight that the cop wasn't waiting on a dog, he was waiting on backup...) but it seems that my question, "what about reasonable suspicion?" is actually where it's going next:

This case may not be as big a “win” for Rodriguez as it looks, because the Court remands the case to examine whether there was, in fact, some “reasonable suspicion” of further crime that would have allowed the officers to further detain him. Two trial judges said there was not, but the Eighth Circuit did not address that question. Justices Thomas and Alito now say there was; the majority says that is “unnecessary.” Notably, Justice Anthony Kennedy – who otherwise joined Justice Thomas – did not join that aspect of Thomas’s dissent.

So the case was not "decided in favor of Rodriguez." It was remanded back to the 8th circuit so they could decide if RS existed to extend the stop.

To be honest I don't think there was. The only thing he's got that he could articulate about the suspects being up to no good was nervousness and an odd story (coming back from "looking at a car to buy" at midnight). So all the officer had was a hunch. Good instincts! He was totally correct! Dudes were in fact running meth.

So while he could run the dog immediately without any constitutional problems (currently...I think dog sniffs are going to be coming under greater scrutiny in SC cases in the coming years), with no RS they were specifically running drugs, he can't delay for a sniff, and with no RS of danger, he can't delay for safety.

So this comes down to two options: A) go ahead and do the sniff and take your chances on violence or B) let them go.

We'll see what the 8th circuit says.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-c...

Historians are often asked what the Founders would
think about various aspects of contemporary life. Such
questions can be tricky to answer. But as historians of
the Revolutionary era we are confident at least of this:
that the authors of the Second Amendment would be
flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican
principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also
precluding restrictions on such potentially dangerous
property as firearms, which governments had always
regulated when there was “real danger of public injury
from individuals.” 2 DHRC at 624.

"Liberals Guide to Doublespeak" as you call it is an actual better understanding of the second amendment and the intent of the ofunders

this moronic conservative idea that irresponsibility with guns is somehow magically a better world is the real problem, and not all what the second amendment supports

and it will not last. you can't defy simple common sense forever

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-c...

Historians are often asked what the Founders would
think about various aspects of contemporary life. Such
questions can be tricky to answer. But as historians of
the Revolutionary era we are confident at least of this:
that the authors of the Second Amendment would be
flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican
principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also
precluding restrictions on such potentially dangerous
property as firearms, which governments had always
regulated when there was “real danger of public injury
from individuals.” 2 DHRC at 624.

so who is full of ignorant bombast? who are you? just a nobody on the Internet. I'll be siding with what the founding fathers actually said, and historians agree on

you're going to have a hard time adjusting to the change that is coming. my ancestor fought in the revolution as a musketman, the second amendment was written for him. and i am proud of the constitution he fought for and i will not see it defiled. it will be enforced as *actually written and intended*

not as it was rewritten by dirty harry hotheads 50 years ago with no historical foundation. history will show that period to be an aberration. the second amendment is about community service, muskets, and the frontier. not about individual action, handguns, and urban crime

and most importantly, if you think you are going to win an argument by endorsing irresponsibility, you must know somewhere in your mind, in spite of all the denial and closed mindedness, that you will lose. there must be some inkling somewhere back in the dust in your skull that the *conservative* principle of personal *responsibility* is the foundation of morality and law. and to champion a broken legal status quo that champions irresponsibility is just not going to last. sorry but "a hand a gun to any mouth breathing douchebag who wants one" is not a winning position friend

Even more relevant to your "data is physical evidence" is this: http://www.scotusblog.com/2014... In the context of 4th Amendment and search pursuant arrest, the court found that data is NOT simply the contents of a locked container that police would ordinarily be able to search without a warrant. Data is different, and there's no consensus on whether 5th Amendment protections shield someone defying a court order to decrypt something.

It can be difficult to get the cops to follow the law.

It can often be difficult to get the cops to even know the law.

It's going to get a lot harder since SCOTUS has declared that cops don't have to know the law. http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/opinion-analysis-reasonable-mistakes-of-law-by-police-do-not-violate-the-fourth-amendment/

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-c...

Historians are often asked what the Founders would
think about various aspects of contemporary life. Such
questions can be tricky to answer. But as historians of
the Revolutionary era we are confident at least of this:
that the authors of the Second Amendment would be
flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican
principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also
precluding restrictions on such potentially dangerous
property as firearms, which governments had always
regulated when there was “real danger of public injury
from individuals.” 2 DHRC at 624.

the current interpretation of the second amendment is constitutional activism from the latter half of the 20th century only, and will be reversed to match the founding father's true intent, which is at odds with gun lovers who for some insane lack of simple intelligence, think that more guns somehow means more safety and somehow does not mean more death. or maybe they do know this, and simply don't care out of heartlessness. either way, the legal and cultural status quo of guns in the usa will not stand. you can't flaunt common sense forever

You might want to read this. Or perhaps start here.

Yes, you can just "stay silent." But that won't stop the interrogation, and your silence can and will be used against you. You might want to read Salina vs. Texas. If you invoke your right to silence and request a lawyer, interrogation must end without presence of a lawyer and nothing you do or do not say can be used against you.

Otherwise the cops are free to go right on talking and observing you. And at trial..."I asked Mr. Ihtoit if he killed the victim and he said nothing. Just sat there like a stone. I told him how brutal the scene looked. Over the next three hours I told him several times about the horrific scene. The blood. The poor victim's family. Not a word from Mr. Ihtoit. His silence was chilling. I've been on the force for 15 years now and I've never seen anyone react so completely without emotion as Mr. Ihtoit. There's a monster in there for sure."

Once you're in custody, the magic words are "I invoke my right to remain silent and I want a lawyer." It doesn't make you look more guilty. They already think you're guilty, or they wouldn't have taken you in to custody. You can't talk your way out. You can't silence your way out. Invoke your right, ask for a lawyer, and shut up.

(Not the same AC as above.)

Depression Quest has gotten a ton of attention and received many reviews, some of which have been positive. Since you ask for specifics, here's a particularly gushing one. Given the timing and the fact that that reviewer does hardly any video game reviews, it's safe to say the this is a result of her relationship with a journalist and the ensuing fallout from that.

I'm betting that's not what you meant though. You probably meant that the only real corruption is quid pro quo corruption, and that if a review wasn't written by the same journalist who slept with her then obviously it doesn't count. The supreme court certainly seems to agree with you, but many of the rest of us feel that a cozy relationship of that nature is one that comes with intangible perks. There's no reason why, for example, her boyfriend at Kotaku couldn't raise his hand at a meeting and say, "Hey, how about this game Depression Quest that my girlfriend made? I think someone should review that. Not me of course, because I am filled with integrity, but one of you should give her some free press."

Correct - even if the officer if pulling you over for something they thought was against the law but turns out it's legal

http://www.scotusblog.com/case...

Worse, the link is to Huffington Post, which has no news, just spin. I've blocked it in /etc/hosts, along with Fox and the Daily Mail and the Daily Beast and Breitbart and Salon and a bunch of other sites that do nothing but misinform for rage-induced clicks and ad revenue.

A better link would have been http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-states/, where you can read the petition, replies and briefs.

So, are you saying all science and data on every subject should always be public?

Nice straw man you've got there. Obviously, I never said or intimated anything of the sort. If some idea is being used to create public policy, enforced by armed bureaucrats, then, yes, absolutely, the science needs to be public and available.

Indeed, back in Good Old Days one could use water for fuel

Another nice straw man. Oh, right, since we had worse pollution 70 years ago, every little tyrannical behavior of the EPA should be allowed without question.

But hey, maybe you fancy living in Mordor.

... and you fancy living in North Korea. nyah.

as that page shows that calling CO2 is accurate in the English language, and also under EPA guidelines.

Clearly your English needs some work, I can't tell WTF you're trying to say, here.

I see you've gone from quoting a propaganda site to a tyrannical armed bureaucracy that directly funds that propaganda, and many others. I don't think that's better.

The only thing about the Federal government worse than the IRS is the EPA.

As for EPA's determination of CO2 as a pollutant, the Office of Inspector General review their finding, and concluded that not only did they not follow basic scientific method in coming to their conclusions, but they didn't even follow their own guidelines (this from the report):

EPA’s TSD Peer Review Methodology Did Not Meet OMB Requirements for Highly Influential Scientific Assessments

EPA fulfilled the statutory requirements for notice and comment rulemakings mandated in the Administrative Procedur e Act and in Section 307 of the CAA, and employed several of its processes de signed to ensure data quality.

EPA did not maintain a record of its respon se and disposition of comments for the two TSDs that accompanied the proposed and final rules. Additionally, the panel’s results and EPA’s response to the panel’s results were not made available to the public as is required for a peer review of a highly influential sc ientific assessment. We also noted that this panel did not fully meet the independence requirements for reviews of highly influential scien tific assessments because one of the panelists was an EPA employee. The OMB bulletin for peer review states that “scientists employed by the sponsoring ag ency are not permitted to serve as reviewers for highly influential scien tific assessments.” See appendix A, question 5, for a more detailed discus sion of the expert panel process.

no supporting analytical inform ation was available to show how EPA made its determination prior to dissem inating the information. EPA’s guidance for assessing the quality of externally generated information does not provide procedures or steps for assessing outs ide data or requirements for documenting such analysis.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm grateful if only because it led me to Larry Tribe's very interesting article about Scalia's tantrum in this case.

That's what's interesting about the Supreme Court. They all are smart, write persuasively. But there's always someone smarter, more persuasive. And in the case of Scalia, where he's writing from an activist agenda, you always have to get a second opinion.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013...

I have a better algorithm... written in one line of perl:

print "Reverse";

Accuracy: 73%

Source http://www.scotusblog.com/stat...

According to http://www.scotusblog.com/stat... the Supreme Court recently affirmed 27% of lower court decisions and reversed 73%. This means that if you guess that the Supreme Court reverses the lower court every time, you'll be 73% accurate. 70% accuracy is ridiculously low if you can get 73% accuracy *without* taking into consideration the records of each justice or any other kind of details.

Of course, the usual reason why the case got to the Supremes in the first place is because there were two cases by different Appeals Circuits which conflicted.

According to http://www.scotusblog.com/stat... the Supreme Court recently affirmed 27% of lower court decisions and reversed 73%. This means that if you guess that the Supreme Court reverses the lower court every time, you'll be 73% accurate. 70% accuracy is ridiculously low if you can get 73% accuracy *without* taking into consideration the records of each justice or any other kind of details.

I didn't RTFA

Clearly

but wouldn't the tricky/slimy answer be "let them search it, so then all of the evidence gets thrown out"?

No, because then you've consented to the search, and there's no restriction on what they can do. By remaining silent, you likely consented to a search. Alarmingly, by remaining silent, you can waive your right to remain silent (see Salinas v. Texas).

In an extremely brief and unanimous opinion by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court held that a taxpayer who wants to question Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agents about their motives for issuing a summons may do so if he can point to "specific facts or circumstances plausibly raising an inference of bad faith."
...
it "will ensure inquiry where the facts and circumstances make inquiry appropriate, without turning every summons dispute into a fishing expedition for official wrongdoing."

- Scotusblog.com

"Big-L Libertarians" are a bunch of crazies, from all over the left-right spectrum (thus the two axes model). But mainstream conservative though is very much aligned with "classic liberalism" now - empowering individual liberty - while the mainstream left seems to value doing things for the benefit of the collective, "collective rights" (fuck you Justice Breyer, and the like. So "small-L libertarians", sure.

But that's just another way of saying "equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome".

It seems to me that this could be interpreted to allow the following scenario: A police informant runs out of gas in front of your house. You let him in to use your phone so he can get a ride. The police then mysteriously show up wanting in. You tell them no but from behind you the informant yells "come right in."

That's not what's going on in this case though.

The /. summary is wrong.

Using your case as an example, you kindly let the informant in. Later, police come to your door. The officer asks "may we search your place?" You say "no". Doesn't matter what the informant says. Your "no" still rules, as long as you are still there. That's still going to be the case.

US v. Matlock, 1974 allowed the search as long as someone who could consent did consent. "Government must show, inter alia, not only that it reasonably appeared to the officers that the person had authority to consent, but also that the person had actual authority to permit the search..."

Georgia v. Randolph, 2006, changed it so that if any occupant objected, then the search could not take place.

Today's ruling, Fernandez v. California clarified and limited the exception from Georgia v. Randolph. If the person who objected to the search isn't there, and the person there is able to and does consent to a search, the search is valid.