tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12963065.post114313654235756655..comments2024-03-08T07:50:03.816+01:00Comments on ComparativeLawBlog: More on Formalism and Bright-Line Rules: USSC Georgia v. RandolphJacco Bomhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630729945696209221noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12963065.post-1144083442049904192006-04-03T18:57:00.000+02:002006-04-03T18:57:00.000+02:00Again very interesting post!In particular, I agree...Again very interesting post!<BR/><BR/>In particular, I agree on the idea that methodology plays a very central role in the decision of hard cases such as this. <BR/><BR/>The battle between Balancing and Bright rules is fascinating and far from being a purely technical one. <BR/><BR/>The battle may also betray a very different understanding of rights. <BR/><BR/>Particularly interesting is the line you quote from dissenters and concerning the limitation of privacy. <BR/><BR/>Privacy properly understood, in my mind, cannot be pooled or shared. There is one individual, and only one, who can consent to the intrusion of his privacy. The ultimate value protected by privacy deserves a bright line approach. In philosophical terms, a deontological approach to rights require their protection in terms of all-or-nothing rules. <BR/><BR/>Dissenters seem to have a more consequentialist approach. Everything is up for grab, including privacy. Therefore, we insert all the details of the case in a balancing machine and we await for the appropriate result. <BR/><BR/>This results in the worrying suggestion that one's privacy in one's house can be limited!!<BR/><BR/>Needless to say, I prefer a bright line approach, even if it has some social costs.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12318790367296360997noreply@blogger.com