For the constitutionally interested among us

[J-Mann]

I'm going to try to make it to the Supreme Court next week to hear oral arguments -- which case would you all recommend I see?

Georgia v Randolph or Evans v Chavis

I'm thinking Georgia v Randolph since it deals with the Fourth Amendment, but I'm willing to hear compelling reasons to hear the other.

[MODU]

FYI . . . your links are broken.  Here you go:

Georgia v Randolph or Evans v Chavis


Personally, Evans v Chavis sounds interesting to me.  Prisoners "rights" is always a neat discussion.

[J-Mann]

FYI . . . your links are broken.  Here you go:

Georgia v Randolph or Evans v Chavis


Personally, Evans v Chavis sounds interesting to me.  Prisoners "rights" is always a neat discussion.

Ah, thanks -- got my links fixed.  I'm still easing back into using YaBB, ya know

Evans v Chavis could be a great one to hear, too.  I'll have to see; it'll depend partly on recommendations here, and partly on my schedule.

[MODU]

FYI . . . your links are broken.  Here you go:

Georgia v Randolph or Evans v Chavis


Personally, Evans v Chavis sounds interesting to me.  Prisoners "rights" is always a neat discussion.

Ah, thanks -- got my links fixed.  I'm still easing back into using YaBB, ya know

Evans v Chavis could be a great one to hear, too.  I'll have to see; it'll depend partly on recommendations here, and partly on my schedule.

One of these days I should try to get into DC to see some of these actions in progress.  I've been here on and off for 19 years now, and have gone into Congress only once, and that was during their Summer recess.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Georgia v. Randolph.

The Georgia case has implications that can't be changed simply by having Congress passing a new law if they don't like it.  The Evans case deals with a narrow technical issue whose scope could be changed by Congress passing a new law that clarifies the issue in the way that Congress wants it clarified if they don't like the Court's interpretation.

[J-Mann]

Any other takers?  Philip, I expected you to chime in on this!

[John Dibble]

The Georgia case sounds really interesting - I'm not sure how I'd rule on that case.

[Peter]

Evans sounds like more of a prudential standing case to me than anything else. If I were hearing anything it would be Georgia of those two - at least Justice Keneddy's questioning should be entertaining.

I can split at least 6 of the 9 Justices from the outset.

[Emsworth]

Here is the argument transcript for Georgia v. Randolph.

The arguments were quite interesting. Even Justice Thomas (who is almost always silent during oral arguments) asked a couple of questions. Out of the nine Justices, Scalia seems to have been most favorable to Randolph, while Roberts appears to be very favorable to Georgia.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A 5-3 decision in favor of Randolph issued today. ( link )

Basically, they ruled that in the absence of any other information or reason, if one lawful occupant says yes and the other says no to a warrantless entry, the no wins.  Six different opinions and I don't have links to them, but the story indicates that quite a few barbs were traded between the justices in them, so it should prove interesting reading for those who find such things entertaining.