News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize P... by craftyguy on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @09:22PM (#19214004)
> The courts aren’t there to set law, that is for the legislature.

They set the interpretation of the law, which could literally go any which way, and is not reversible without further legislative action to repeal/amend the law. So in a way, they most definitely set law by solidifying its 'meaning'.

Re:U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize P... by cryptonector on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @11:07PM (#19214454)
And then there's common law, which is essentially judge-made law.

Case law is very much law. Judges are not supposed to invent law from whole cloth, sure, but they are supposed to make law in a very specific and important sense: by interpreting law (including constitutional law) when its meaning isn't clear. The fact that some judges abuse this to set policy does not mean that judges shouldn't make law -- it only means that some judges don't have the right stuff to be judges. But judge-made law is a thing, and a real and legitimate thing. Downvoting this won't make it not so. Please acquaint yourselves with English and American jurisprudence, law, and constitutions.

Re:U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize P... by posterboy on Thursday February 21, 2019 @02:40PM (#19219871)
The problem is one of semantics. Law is an ambiguous term and commentators have different interpretations--let's appreciate the irony for a second.
Re:U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize P... by cryptonector on Saturday February 23, 2019 @12:05AM (#19231756)
Ha, good point. It's worth knowing the difference between law and statute...
Re:U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize P... by posterboy on Monday February 25, 2019 @05:37AM (#19244586)
"I say I say I say: Statutory law is not law". This kind of negativity is questionable.