phone, and all the other things that we now rely upon. and as i mentioned earlier, the supreme court and every court deals with individual cases, disputes about issues. and when the court gets an issue that requires constitutional interpretation, it looks at the facts and circumstances of the particular case and the context and principles of the constitution, in light of the times in which they were written, and analogizes to present day. so the supreme court, for example, has considered the cell phone issue, with respect to the constitutional principle of unreasonable searches and seizures, which is a protection
from government intrusion that the framers called an unreasonable search. the text unreasonable search, is not does not have an inherent definition, what the supreme court has done is looked back at the time of the founding to determine what kinds of intrusion would have been covered when those words were written into the constitution. and to the extent that the at time of the founding, those words covered things like police officer intruding into your home and looking into your papers and affairs, then the supreme court analogizes that circumstance to the modern-day circumstance of a cell phone, which now is in all respects, says the court, like rifling through your papers and
undertakes to reverse a precedent. one of those factors is the view that the precedent it s reconsidering is wrong, but that s not the only factor. the court also determines, in addition to whether or not the prior precedent was egregiously wrong, the court has said, the court looks at whether there s been reliance on that prior precedent. whether the precedent is workable or has proven workable over time. whether the cases in the area of the precedent have shifted such that the precedent itself is no longer on firm foundation. and whether there have been either new facts or a new understanding of the facts, that give rise to a need to revisit the precedent.
that what i was attempting to do in light of congress s enactments, not only the particular immigration provision, but also the administrative procedure act, was reconciled. the statutes of congress, which is something that the courts also are supposed to do. that there are statutory interpretation canyons that make clear that courts are supposed to understand that congress intends for its statutes to work together and to the extent that you are interpreting, and the claim is made that allows you to do that. that s the sort of way in which interpretation is done. i can go through my actual analysis. i did it yesterday, as we talked. but there was a good faith disagreement between me and the court of appeals, which gets to decide as to what the language
litigants seek to go to different places in the country, where they think that they may get a better result. and it s something that congress can address because congress has the power to determine various aspects of judicial process. explain the political question doctrine. and then what standards would you apply to determine whether a claim before you, implicates a political question. so the political question doctrine is a doctrine that relates to the jurisdiction of the court. as i mentioned, the courts are in a particular branch of government, the judicial branch, that is limited in its