Scotus, meet Ohio; Ohio, meet Scotus

MP900302920 Bravo to Justice Stephen Breyer!  Why?  Because I respect anyone who is willing to admit they don't know or understand something (in this case, Facebook).  Seems it's one of the toughest things for some people to do.  Haven't you been in a meeting where it's obvious the speaker doesn't know something, but rather than admit it, they 'fake' it?

The Canadians made up a whole program around it, "This Hour has 22 Minutes".  The premise is that if they approach someone and question them on any subject – including ones they make up out of thin air – the person will attempt to speak intelligently instead of admitting they know nothing about it.  Lesson learned:

Beware of the Canadians…

Let's hope the Judges in Ohio understand Facebook better than you do…

I've always taken the opposite track.  If I don't know something, I'll state it then and there; "I don't know, but I'll find out the answer and get back to you."  That position is even more accute as an attorney, where mistakes can be deadly to the client.  Some see it as a sign of weakness, but I don't – nor have I ever experienced any negative reaction from a client.

What Breyer is really saying is that, at 72 years of age, he's still open to learning.  I've used a consistent approach since I've been doing this line of work; know what you don't know.  All it really means is, understand where your limits are, then seek out the resources necessary.  Don't fake it and hope to be right later.

I guess it surprised me that Roberts and Scalia had no qualms establishing that neither one of them had a clue to life about how texting works – this while hearing a case about…texting (Quon).  Gentlemen, the answers we were looking for were "router", "gateway" and/or "server".

Indulge me for a moment.  In a case regarding privacy, where waiver might be at issue, do you think it might be of some import for the judges to understand that if a message passes through other devices on its way to its final destination – and any one of those devices may retain a copy of the message – and, stay with me, a party knew that these messages pass through other devices, this knowledge might create a waiver?

I'm not theorizing about Quon specifically, by the way, I'm simply making a point.  Kind of reminds you of that old saying, "Out of the facts, the law arises", not the other way around.

How in the world are we going to solve this problem!?!?!? 

I don't know, but I'll find out the answer and get back to you…