"Brian Running" wrote in message
...
Um, wrong. If the courts rule it is illegal, then by definition it is
illegal. An example of how a court can legally make a law.

No, courts can't do that. If a court finds that something is illegal,
then
it is finding that someone broke a law, it is not making a law.

Not true at all. Take a basic college political science class.

I'll do better than that -- how 'bout law school and 16 years of
practicing
law? Your original statement was, "If the courts rule it is illegal, then
by definition it is illegal." That's wrong. Courts don't have freedom to
make law, they interpret areas that specific laws don't explicitly cover,

We are saying the same thing here in two different ways. Since a court is
charged with determining the legality of an activity in question, then in
essence, if there is no prescedent, they are determining whether or not that
activity is legal or illegal. That activity is then, essentially, deemed
"illegal". I am not trying to imply that a court can write statutory law.

and those interpretations become binding precedent if they are decided by
the highest court in that jurisdiction. In the case that started this
whole
thread, the court did not find any activity to be illegal, it simply
applied
the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule that developed in case law
to
enforce the Fourth Amendment. It did not determine for the first time
that
anything was illegal.

All this shrieking about eavesdropping on your kids being illegal seems to
be based on the comments of the kid's lawyer, and not upon what the court
actually ruled. Washington law requires the consent of all parties to a
telephone conversation to consent to its recording, apparently (many
states
only require the consent of one party). It's not illegal to eavesdrop,
but
any evidence that obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be
used to prosecute you criminally.