IRONCHEF wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Third: It's actually impossible for the SCOTUS to make an unconstitutional ruling, since they are the ultimate arbiters of what is constitutional and what isn't. Basically, if they say it's NOT unconstitutional, then it's not...and by default IS constitutional. I think they've screwed up in this ruling, but can't say their ruling is unconstitutional.
Actually, I think the ruling does say while unconstitutional, it's for the good of security.
That's not what it says (see highlight)
1. The Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and the stops and questioning may be made at reasonably located checkpoints in the absence of any individualized suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. Pp. 556-564.
(a) To require that such stops always be based on reasonable suspicion would be
impractical because the flow of traffic tends to be too heavy to allow the particularized study of a given car necessary to identify it as a possible carrier of illegal aliens. Such a requirement also would largely eliminate any deterrent to the conduct of well-disguised smuggling operations, even though smugglers are known to use these highways regularly. Pp. 556-557.
(b) While the need to make routine checkpoint stops is great, the consequent intrusion on Fourth Amendment interests is quite limited, the interference with legitimate traffic being minimal and checkpoint operations involving less discretionary enforcement activity than roving-patrol stops. Pp. 557-560.
(c) Under the circumstances of these checkpoint stops, which do not involve searches, the Government or public interest in making such stops outweighs the constitutionally protected interest of the private citizen. Pp. 560-562.
(d) With respect to the checkpoint involved in No. 74-1560, it is constitutional to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for limited inquiry on the basis of criteria that would not sustain a roving-patrol stop, since the intrusion is sufficiently minimal that no particularized reason need exist to justify it. Pp. 563-564.
That's fairly unambiguous.
Regardless, I think perhaps I wasn't clear earlier. If the SCOTUS pronounces any law to NOT be unconstitutional, then it is by default constitutional. Hence, the SCOTUS CANNOT uphold an unconstitutional law. It's impossible. If they uphold it, it is by definition constitutional.
What I find odd is that even after a law is pronounced unconstitutional, it is still in place and enforced until another law either repeals or supercedes it. That is seriously fucked up. (can't find the damn page I saw that on today)