And now the Supreme Court pisses me off

Okay, Supremes, though I strongly support the Massachusetts law that provided a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics, I can at least understand your free-speech argument in striking down that law:  People have long gathered on public streets and sidewalks for discussions and protests, so this Massachusetts law went too far in stopping such gatherings.  I don't like this decision, as I said, but as a free-speech advocate, I can at least understand the basis of your reasoning.

Except.

Except that you've established other types of buffer zones to protect people.  

Except that you don't apply it to the equally public property around your own building.  You get to have a safety zone, a buffer zone, on which no one can protest.

That's bullshit.  Afford the same protection from protest to others that you afford to yourself, or open your own area to protest.

Be consistent.

Supremes, this time you let us all down.

For much more on this, check out the Rachel Maddow show below bit on this topic.

Way to go, Supreme Court!

Though I'm frequently critical of the work of this court, I have to say that I applaud their recent decision to require police to have a search warrant before they can look through the contents of a person's cell phone.  With all the information that today's cell phones can carry, I believe this ruling was absolutely the right one.  They even explained it well near the end of the ruling:

The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple—get a warrant. 

The ruling, which is worth at least a skim, displays a refreshingly good understanding of the role smartphones play in our lives today. 

Good job, Supreme Court!