things that existed at the time of the founding, there would be no answer to what to do about a cell phone. so what the supreme court has said and done is to determine that the principle of the fourth amendment with respect to searches is determine whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, they also have looked at property interests with respect to whether or not there s an invasion of privacy and then determined from history what that reasonable expectation of privacy related to pack at the time of the founding and analogyized to current things like cell phones. it s a method of interpretation that allows you to instead of
to things that existed at the time of the founding, there would be no answer to what to do about a cell phone. and so what the supreme court has said and done is to determine that the principle of the fourth amendment with respect to searches is to determine whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. they also have looked at property interests with respect to whether or not there is an invasion of privacy, and then determined from history what that reasonable expectation of privacy related to back at the time of the founding, and analogized to situations like cell phones. it is a method of interpretation that allows you to instead of
of the founding, there would be no answer to what to do about a cell phone. and so what the supreme court has said and done is to determine that the principle of the fourth amendment with respect to searches is to determine whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. they also have looked at property interests with respect to whether or not there s an invasion of privacy, then determined from history what that reasonable expectation of privacy related to back at the time of the founding and analogized to current circumstances related to things like cell phones. it s a method of interpretation that allows you to instead of the alternative, which would be
0 first of two long and intense days of questioning from members of the senate judiciary committee began this morning with democrats using their questions to allow jackson to issue a rebuttal to republican accusations that she has been soft on crime and republicans pressing her on her record as a judge and public defender and bringing up a whole host of conservative hobby horses. things like critical race theory. jackson has tried to stay above the fray in her responses. early on in the hearing, she told democratic senator, dick durbin, quote, i tried to stay in my lane. along with me are claire mccaskill and msnbc political analyst with danielle holly walker, dean and professor at howard school of law and joyce vance, law professor at university of alabama as well as an msnbc legal analyst. we have a few minutes before we go back to the hearing. claire, i want to start with you. just some of the fireworks that happened earlier today. just in the last hour or so. senator ted cruz arriv