Streams

Supreme Court Insta-Reaction: Recess Appointments, Buffer Zones

Thursday, June 26, 2014

The exterior of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2012 in Washington, DC. (Mark Wilson/Getty)

We discuss some of today's Supreme Court opinions with Emily Bazelon of Slate. The court ruled that some of Obama's recess appointments were unconstitutional; and struck down a Massachusetts law that created a buffer zone around abortion clinics. Plus, the impact of a Utah circuit court's gay marriage decision.

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Comments [12]

Arthur Paris from Syracuse, NY

Re. the cellphone decision and its relevance to border entry/exit. There has been a glaring opening afforded the guardians at US borders at least since the passage of the Patriot Act. The authorities have claimed and acted on their right to search your possessions, person and devices, especially insofar as persons of color are concerned
An Ex., at least 5 yrs. back, a US citizen was stopped at the Canadian border (I forget whether exiting or [re]entering). He was searched, as was his laptop. He was subsequently tried, convicted (and sentenced to jail time) for what was found on his laptop; (in his case, I believe it was child porn).
While I have no brief for child pornographers, citizens and non-citizens crossing US borders had better remember that they have no privacy rights/legally recognized protections against search/seizure. They are at the mercy & discretion of the border control agents they encounter at the checkpoints. It will be a significant improvement if this cellphone decision changes guardian practice at the border.

Jun. 26 2014 01:29 PM

It's nice to see Ms Bazelon and Brian agree on measures for the "public good":

"Why can't the schedules and practices of "public" institutions (e.g., the timing and manner of announcing SCOTUS decisions) be tailored to the schedules of the industrial-media complex?"

Jun. 26 2014 11:44 AM

As for "free speech" at Democrat Conventions:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/tag/democratic-convention

Jun. 26 2014 11:28 AM

As for "free speech" at Democrat Conventions:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/tag/democratic-convention

Jun. 26 2014 11:27 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

Wikipedia - Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution

Precedent in English law:

Sir Edward Coke, in Semayne's case (1604), famously stated: "The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose."[2] Semayne's Case acknowledged that the King did not have unbridled authority to intrude on his subjects' dwellings but recognized that government agents were permitted to conduct searches and seizures under certain conditions when their purpose was lawful and a warrant had been obtained.[3]

Jun. 26 2014 11:26 AM

The "legality" of searches at U.S. international borders is not governed by 4th Amendment principles. You should have "legal experts", not fabulists, as guests to explain that.

Jun. 26 2014 11:24 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

In my personal opinion, you have no privacy rights outside your home. Outside your home you're public, not private, and the police should have the right to search you and any part of you, as well as your car, your phone, even your womb and your butt - IF they have "probable cause" which they can defend before a judge. Otherwise you should sue their butts off.But I don't believe it was the intention of the framers when they put into the Constitution the restriction against searching your home without a warrant the extension of "privacy rights" outside of the home.

Jun. 26 2014 11:19 AM
Amy from Manhattan

Brian, please remember that not all women who go to women's clinic are there to have abortions.

Jun. 26 2014 11:19 AM
Emily from Manhattan

and a buffer zone around the supreme court

Jun. 26 2014 11:13 AM

Can I protest on a sidewalk against the republican national convention or will I be penned?

Jun. 26 2014 11:08 AM
Chris from Queens

Does this mean no more "free-speech zones" during political rallies?

Jun. 26 2014 11:06 AM
Guest from New Jersey

Apparently, the only time we need a buffer zone is during the Republican national conventions.

Jun. 26 2014 11:05 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.