Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

October 4, 2010 -

The Supreme Court opens for a new session today, and with a number of cases on its docket involving technology—including, of course, Schwarzenegger vs. EMA—how up-to-date on the latest gadgets and means of communication are the SCOTUS Justices?

It’s a logical question and one posed by an American Public Media host to a recent guest, Professor Jeffrey Rosen from the George Washington University Law School, who also writes for the New Republic

“Some are pretty plugged-in,” was Rosen’s initial answer.

“Justice Thomas telecommutes; he does a lot of his work at home over the Internet and emails drafts in,” said Rosen, adding, “Justice Breyer certainly uses a cell phone. He is quite tech savy and uses email extensively.”

Rosen continued:

These Justices are much more savvy than the Court was a couple years ago, when in the first Internet privacy porn case, they literally had to have law clerks come in and show them how to turn on the Internet and surf the Web because they’d never really heard of it before. But I think we can these  Justices are going to be savvy enough so that it’s not going to be a completely alien force when they are confronted with technology issues.

Rosen was then asked his opinion on whether it matters, in terms of the decisions they are making, if the Justices are up-to-speed on technology.

He answered, “I think it shapes the way they approach these issues.”

Rosen then relayed a story involving a recent thermal imaging case, used to track potential pot growers, and referenced Justice Scalia’s decision to illustrate that the Justices aren’t always in touch. “Justice Scalia actually wrote a majority opinion protecting the man (who was caught via thermal imaging), saying that the Constitution had to be translated to take account of these new technologies.”

As Rosen recounted, “He (Scalia) was worried that the heat seeking technology might reveal the hour of the day where the lady of the house was taking her daily sauna or bath.”


Comments

Re: Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

Why is there a USB hub on the cover of an internet book?

Re: Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

Ha!  I didn't even notice!


Re: Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

While it is important that the Supreme Court judges are tech savvy, I think that it is precisely because they can't understand the impact things may have on an industry that we have Amici.  Especially in the case of the Schwarzenegger v. EMA case, I think that the Amici on the side of the game industry are important to educating the judges, especially the one by the IGDA that explores the artistic significance of games even if it does spoil who the killer is in heavy rain.  Even the most tech savvy justice likely doesn't play video games and we would have to otherwise rely on the hope that their clerks do.  

Re: Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

You're relying on the bench briefs of those clerks either way. How many of the Justices do you think are actually gonna pore over every word in all those fifty-page amicus briefs that have been filed? Rather than relying on the one-page summaries of their clerks?

Well, maybe not Kagan. Having recused herself from half of the cases on the October Term's docket, she's got little better else to do with her time.

Re: Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

I agree although most briefs are actually more like 20 pages or shorter considering the tiny margins and all that.  Still, if one brief is especially insightful, the summary of that brief may cause the justice to read the full brief if he thinks it is going to help decide the case.  Of course I am simply guessing here. 

Re: Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

This question of being tech savvy might change the outlook of the voilent games case next month.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

It's interesting whenever Scalia, the Dean of the Original Intent Interpretive School of Thought, acknowledges that the Constitution sometimes has to be translated to take account of new  technologies. If not, the right to bear arms would only cover flintlock pistols and muskets.

Re: Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

Yeah, I watch Colbert too. 


Re: Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

Please. Colbear's writers look to me when they're short on inspiration.

Re: Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

This is why I have trouble taking the 'Strict Constitutionalist' crowd seriously.... in order to function even vaugly they have to apply thier own philosphy very selectvily.. and Scalia, just like others in that school, happily drop the concept when they wish to and pick it back up again when they want to resist protecting some group or thing they do not personally approve of.

The ironic part is, if one was going to actually be a strict constituonalist.. the original debates (which were recorded) are filled with language stating that the consitution is the absolute minium of things the government can not do period.. rather then the 'this is the limit of the protections we must extend, when we feel like it, oh here are some exceptions' that is has become.

Re: Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

I'm also not sure that simply being able to use email is a sign that someone is tech savvy in this day and age.

Although, I guess it's significantly better than not being able to use it.

------- Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

Re: Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

I agree it's better for them being able to work the email system than not, but they do to need possess more proficiency with it than a certain disbarred attorney we all know and hate. And I also much prefer that their tech skills don't end there, but I'll take what I can get.

Re: Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

Next question is, is the law professor who answered the question tech savvy?

Because I'm not inclined to trust the opinion of anyone who uses the phrase "turn on the Internet" on what constitutes technical knowledge.

Re: Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

Why wouldn't FLIR be able to detect a sauna full of hot water? I don't think Scalia's as out of touch as Professor Rosen thinks he is.

Re: Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

I often disagree with Scalia but in this case I believe that using thermal imaging would violate the 4th amendment... precisely for the reasons that he says.   

Of course there may be more to Rosen's statement...

------- Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

Re: Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

I don't think that Rosen's disagreeing with the fundamental soundness of Scalia's decision. I think he's suggesting that Scalia's not up on FLIR technology as evidenced by the suggestion that FLIR can detect when someone's taking a bath. And, under the right circumstances, I believe that FLIR can do just that.

Re: Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

FLIR is quite capable of exactly that, which is why I am wondering if Rosen is tech-savvy enough to be giving an opinion of how tech-savvy someone else is.

---

With the first link, the chain is forged.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

I am going to go with... no...

Re: Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

Well, shiver my timbers and blow me down! You've for once in your life rendered an opinion that actually makes some sense. Keep up the good work. There may be hope for you after all.

Re: Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

And all you've done is confirm that you are completely incapable of not being a dick.

---

With the first link, the chain is forged.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

If you kids can't be nice, so help me I'll turn this car right around!


Re: Are the Supreme Court Justices Tech-Savvy?

Well, he started it!!

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Neo_DrKefkahttps://archive.today/F14zZ https://archive.today/SxFas https://archive.today/1upoI https://archive.today/0hu7i https://archive.today/NsPUC https://archive.today/fLTQv https://archive.today/Wpz8S10/20/2014 - 11:21am
Andrew EisenNeo_DrKefka - "Attacking"? Interesting choice of words. Also interesting that you quoted something that wasn't actually said. Leaving out a relevant link, are you?10/20/2014 - 11:04am
quiknkoldugh. I want to know why the hell Mozerella Sticks are 4 dollars at my works cafeteria...are they cooked in Truffle Oil?10/20/2014 - 10:41am
Neo_DrKefkaAnti-Gamergate supporter Robert Caruso attacks female GamerGate supporter by also attacking another cause she support which is the situation happening in Syia “LET SYRIANS SUFFER” https://archive.today/F14zZ https://archive.today/Wpz8S10/20/2014 - 10:18am
Neo_DrKefkaThat is correct in an At-Will state you or the employer can part ways at any time. However Florida also has laws on the books about "Wrongful combinations against workers" http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/448.04510/20/2014 - 10:07am
james_fudgehe'd die if he couldn't talk about Wii U :)10/20/2014 - 9:16am
Michael ChandraBy the way, I am not saying Andrew should stop talking about Wii-U. I find it quite nice. :)10/20/2014 - 8:53am
Michael Chandra'How dare he ignore my wishes and my advice! I am his boss! I could have ordered him but I should be able to say it's advice rather than ordering him directly!'10/20/2014 - 8:52am
Michael ChandraIf GP goes "EZK, do not talk about X publicly for a week, we're preparing a big article on it" and he still tweets about X, they'd have a legitimate reason to be pissed.10/20/2014 - 8:52am
Michael ChandraIf GP tells Andrew "we'd kinda prefer it if you stopped talking about Wii-U for 1 week" and he'd tweet about it anyway, firing him for it would be idiotic.10/20/2014 - 8:51am
Michael ChandraLegal right, sure. But that doesn't make it any less pathetic of an excuse.10/20/2014 - 8:50am
ZippyDSMleeYou mean right to fire states.10/20/2014 - 8:50am
james_fudgesome states have "at will" employee laws10/20/2014 - 7:50am
quiknkoldIt says in the article that being in florida, you can get fired regardless if its a fireable offence10/20/2014 - 7:19am
Michael ChandraIf your employee respectfully disagrees with your advice, that's not a fireable offense. If they ignore your order, THEN you have the right to be pissed.10/20/2014 - 6:49am
Michael ChandraI... Don't get one thing. If you do not want your employee to do X, why do you tell them it's advice or a wish? Give them a damn order.10/20/2014 - 6:48am
james_fudgeA leak that had me worried about being swatted by Lizard Squad.10/20/2014 - 6:03am
james_fudgeIt should be noted that the author leaked the GJP group names online10/20/2014 - 6:03am
MechaTama31I mean, of the groups being bullied here, which of the two would you refer to collectively as "nerds"?10/19/2014 - 11:30pm
MechaTama31But that's the thing, it doesn't sound to me like he is advocating bullying, it sounds like he is accusing the SJWs of bullying the "nerds", who I can only assume refers to the GGers.10/19/2014 - 11:21pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician