Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> Freedom to Differ
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
International Law
: Freedom to DifferWSJ Law Blog: "Our Tech-Savvy Supreme Court"
The Supreme Court justices are a bright bunch. But chances are you?re not going to see them at next January?s CES show or ever watch them on a Web video demonstrating how to create apps for the iPhone.
That much was driven home, it seems, during today?s oral arguments in the case City of Ontario v. Quon.
The case examines whether a California police department violated the constitutional rights of an employee when it inspected personal text messages sent and received by a pager owned by the city of Ontario, Calif.
According to this post, at DC Dicta, the Court asked some questions of the lawyers which, well, the justices? kids and grandkids could have answered while sleepwalking.
According to the story, the first sign of trouble came was about midway through the argument, when Chief Justice John Roberts asked what the difference was ?between email and a pager?? (Cue sound of hard slap against forehead.)
At another point, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked what would happen if a text message was sent to an officer at the same time he was sending one to someone else.
?Does it say: ?Your call is important to us, and we will get back to you??? Kennedy asked. (Cue sound of louder slap against forehead.)
Justice Antonin Scalia stumbled getting his arms around with the idea of a service provider.
?You mean (the text) doesn?t go right to me?? he asked.
Then he asked whether they can be printed out in hard copy.
?Could Quon print these spicy little conversations and send them to his buddies?? Scalia asked.
Maybe the justices are against cameras in the court because when they think of cameras, they think of those huge cameras on tripods with the cloth to cover the photographers and the supernova flash-bulbs.
via blogs.wsj.com
Unfortunately I doubt the High Court of Australia would be much better. Certainly when I worked at the Queensland Supreme Court, the level of technological know how amongst most of the judges was very limited indeed. I posted a podcast on this topic last year, E-courts only work with e-judges and e-lawyers, that you can listen to here:
Full post as published by Freedom to Differ on April 20, 2010 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause
State of Virginia
$11 million settlement reached in Virginia Tech massacre.
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million
Personal Injury
Appeals Court Upholds Congressional Legislation
Tomato Salmonella
Sheetz Convenience Stores agrees to confidential out-of-court settlement with food poisoning victim.
National Association of Realtors
Settlement reached in broker listing antitrust lawsuit, pending court approval.
Missouri Attorney General's Office
$26,000 settlement reached in disability discrimination lawsuit, pending court approval.

Courts - "Our ''Tech-Savvy Supreme Court"
Web 2.0: The Future of Collaborative Government
Tech savvy education leaders, this ones for you!
Does the President Need to Be Tech Savvy Um, Yes.









