Reply to post: Re: Gorsuch's dissent FTW.

In huge privacy win, US Supreme Court rules warrant needed to slurp folks' location data

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

Re: Gorsuch's dissent FTW.

The funny/sad thing is that most of the people who are voting specifically to get conservative (or in fewer cases, liberal) justices are doing so for only two issues. Abortion and gun rights. If they care about privacy at all it is way down their list of priorities, and they'd gladly give it up to get justices who will go their way on those core issues.

Its almost to the point where I wish we could have two courts, one to handle the hot button politically tinged issues, and one that handles everything else - where the justices appointed to it are appointed because they are great legal minds like used to be the case until the "moral majority" started a crusade for appointing justices who will overturn Roe v Made.

Now we get justices appointed because they are young enough they can stay on the court for decades, and their voting record is so hyper-partisan that there seems little chance they might moderate their views as they get older. Whether they are the best possible choice for a judge on the highest court in the land is irrelevant to modern presidents.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon