One reason they may not want to rule is they realize the consequences. And by letting it die a quite death they lose nothing and hold future options open. This of course would be predicated upon the vast majority of the SC wanting to rule in favor of IR searches but recognizing there isn't a realistic constitutional argument to support such action. It would effectively squash the current action and give them about 2 years of breathing room. While this scenario is not probable it is clearly not completely unlikely either. In addition it raises the interesting question of what would say a 2 year delay gain? A very different bench? How many are likely to retire in the next two years? ____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:40:35 -0500 From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com> Cc: cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com, The Club Inferno <hell@EINSTEIN.ssz.com> Subject: Re: CDR: Speaking of free speech... On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 12:48:07AM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:

Has anyone seen anything on the Supreme Court and the IR/4th Amendment Search issue? It seems like a vacuum.

If the SC doesn't rule and let it just sit there won't this be the same as agreeing that the search is legal without having to face the actual constitutional test of issuing a ruling? What happens if they let it sit until the court retires (Oct.?) for the year? Are they required to re-visit when they rejoin?

They're not required to do anything. But I don't see any reason why they won't rule by the end of the term. A "vacuum?" There's been a lot of news coverage, sheesh. Hand-waving, as usual, mixed with a bit of conspiracy theorizing. -Declan Case could define privacy Feb. 22, 2001 14:31 ET www.dallasnews.com/national/291863_1ascotus_20nat.html Privacy Vs. Technology in High Court Case Feb. 20, 2001 14:25 ET abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/scotus_thermal010220.html Supreme Court to consider whether privacy, high-tech snooping are at odds Feb. 20, 2001 04:51 ET seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/SeattleTimes.woa/wa/gotoArticle?zsection_id=268448413&t... High-tech search at issue in pot case Feb. 10, 2001 05:45 ET www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?f=/stories/20010209/470055.html Privacy a Victim of the Drug War Dec. 11, 2000 02:00 ET www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,40532,00.html