Re:Cell dialers that don’t use a random number generator to ...
by wahern on Thursday April 01, 2021 @10:14PM
(#26668470)
The plaintiff actually had a solid argument, both regarding the literal wording as well as the intent of the law, and it would be hard to fault a court for taking their interpretation, which the 9th Circuit actually did.
To my mind this is an example of the outcome being dictated by the consequences: by the time it reached SCOTUS it had become much more clear how disruptive a contrary ruling would be. The defendant Facebook's argument was just as reasonable, so of course it made sense to choose it. If this case had come 20+ years ago, the plaintiff very well may have won.
I think it's a funny case because one could easily imagine Gorsuch or Thomas pontificating in a lengthy dissent about how a Real(TM) textual interpretation demands ruling for the plaintiff. I mean, this case is basically a textualist coin toss, but a dissent will always go to the mat. Fortunately or unfortunately, we don't get to enjoy that this time.
To my mind this is an example of the outcome being dictated by the consequences: by the time it reached SCOTUS it had become much more clear how disruptive a contrary ruling would be. The defendant Facebook's argument was just as reasonable, so of course it made sense to choose it. If this case had come 20+ years ago, the plaintiff very well may have won.
SCOTUS Blog's oral argument analysis provides a good summary showing the reasonableness of the plaintiff's argument: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/argument-analysis-justice... At the time it seemed like the justices were quite open to it.
I think it's a funny case because one could easily imagine Gorsuch or Thomas pontificating in a lengthy dissent about how a Real(TM) textual interpretation demands ruling for the plaintiff. I mean, this case is basically a textualist coin toss, but a dissent will always go to the mat. Fortunately or unfortunately, we don't get to enjoy that this time.