They will care if they are given
a compelling reason to care from
some new case someone brings.
The system is designed so that it's
super tough for politics, etc. to
cause the court not to care. It
is likely true that the court wants
to maintain a lot of respect from
the citizens, but their level of
respect is fairly high now.
If the court gets an opportunity
to strike down some of the Patriot
Act, etc. and wants to, then they
likely have plenty of 'political
capital' to do so. Indeed, one
reason now to make a big stink in the
public media, including HN, that
what the NSA did violates the Fourth
Amendment, etc. is to provide
'political capital' for the court
to strike down the relevant laws.
My reading is that at the present
time, US citizens are heavily on
the side of keeping their phone
calls, e-mail contents, Internet
usage, etc. private instead of
trashing the Constitution so that
the NSA can try to catch another
Boston bomber.
The way I have tried to put the
issue is to say that the Constitution
is a big part of what is worth
protecting in the US so that it is
logically impossible both to protect
the US and trash the Constitution
and, instead, we need to protect
both the Constitution and the rest
of the US. For this goal, maybe we need
some better police work.
I have high confidence that we can
protect both the US and the Constitution.
If that view is popular in the US,
then the court will have plenty of
'political capital' to protect the
Constitution.
>It is likely true that the court wants to maintain a lot of respect from the citizens, but their level of respect is fairly high now.
No it isn't likely true. It is likely true they want to make a lot of money. They don't care about the citizens, why would they? They have jobs for life.
>My reading is that at the present time, US citizens are heavily on the side of keeping their phone calls, e-mail contents, Internet usage, etc. private instead of trashing the Constitution so that the NSA can try to catch another Boston bomber.
And where on earth are you getting such a reading? By a large margin people are currently willing to let these breaches of privacy go on because they truly believe there is some global terrorist network out there bent on destroying them. I mean, even right here on HN the 4th amendment violations aren't globally seen as a bad thing.
This is one again a case of you imagining things to be how you wish they were as opposed to what actual evidence would tell you.
>The way I have tried to put the issue is to say that the Constitution is a big part of what is worth protecting in the US so that it is logically impossible both to protect the US and trash the Constitution and, instead, we need to protect both the Constitution and the rest of the US. For this goal, maybe we need some better police work.
The constitution has been shat on almost since before the ink dried. As soon as you have lawyers, you have people who are finding a way to interpret any law in a way favorable to their clients.
Outside of high school "American History" classes, the constitution isn't that big a deal. It's mostly just a handy extra piece of leverage for a branch of government to do something they wanted to do anyway. Had the constitution been in the way of their goals they would simply ignore it or try to interpret it in some more favorable way.
The system is designed so that it's super tough for politics, etc. to cause the court not to care. It is likely true that the court wants to maintain a lot of respect from the citizens, but their level of respect is fairly high now.
If the court gets an opportunity to strike down some of the Patriot Act, etc. and wants to, then they likely have plenty of 'political capital' to do so. Indeed, one reason now to make a big stink in the public media, including HN, that what the NSA did violates the Fourth Amendment, etc. is to provide 'political capital' for the court to strike down the relevant laws.
My reading is that at the present time, US citizens are heavily on the side of keeping their phone calls, e-mail contents, Internet usage, etc. private instead of trashing the Constitution so that the NSA can try to catch another Boston bomber.
The way I have tried to put the issue is to say that the Constitution is a big part of what is worth protecting in the US so that it is logically impossible both to protect the US and trash the Constitution and, instead, we need to protect both the Constitution and the rest of the US. For this goal, maybe we need some better police work.
I have high confidence that we can protect both the US and the Constitution. If that view is popular in the US, then the court will have plenty of 'political capital' to protect the Constitution.