> Perhaps you would like to advance an actual argument
> insofar as abusing access to portable computing devices
> to virtually riffle through an individuals entire life
> without benefit of court or even articulable suspicion?
You seem to think that I support a side I don't. Cases like this don't survive motions for summary judgement if the one side is completely implausible. This case either survived a motion for summary judgement, or the "obvious" side didn't make such a motion.
So if you think it is completely obvious, you should take it up with either the judge that denied the motion, or the lawyer who neglected to bring it.
> Lest we forgot Texas had to have the supreme court tell them that they couldn't outlaw gay sex not that long ago.
Any law that forbid it was unjust, and it should have been fixed long, long before Obergefell. But just because a law is unjust, doesn't mean that it is unconstitutional on its face, (cf, civil asset forfeiture--manifestly unjust and currently legal in many circumstances) This is a mistake many court-watchers make.
It is a very safe bet that a 1950's court would have gone the other way on Obergefell, so on a plain language standard kind of fails. At some point, society gained a better understanding of what justice is and is not--and that is a great thing. But if the plain language didn't change, then the appeal to plain language isn't what gets us there. Rather, our understanding of justice did.
> insofar as abusing access to portable computing devices
> to virtually riffle through an individuals entire life
> without benefit of court or even articulable suspicion?
You seem to think that I support a side I don't. Cases like this don't survive motions for summary judgement if the one side is completely implausible. This case either survived a motion for summary judgement, or the "obvious" side didn't make such a motion.
So if you think it is completely obvious, you should take it up with either the judge that denied the motion, or the lawyer who neglected to bring it.
> Lest we forgot Texas had to have the supreme court tell them that they couldn't outlaw gay sex not that long ago.
Any law that forbid it was unjust, and it should have been fixed long, long before Obergefell. But just because a law is unjust, doesn't mean that it is unconstitutional on its face, (cf, civil asset forfeiture--manifestly unjust and currently legal in many circumstances) This is a mistake many court-watchers make.
It is a very safe bet that a 1950's court would have gone the other way on Obergefell, so on a plain language standard kind of fails. At some point, society gained a better understanding of what justice is and is not--and that is a great thing. But if the plain language didn't change, then the appeal to plain language isn't what gets us there. Rather, our understanding of justice did.