Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 01:55pm PT
|
Conservatives will defend this.
Coot, it was an 8-1 decision. All of the Obama appointees, as well as Breyer, voted with the majority. This isn't a liberal-conservative split, it's an issue of what constitutes exigent circumstances. Since you are apparently a lawyer, you must be aware of the vagaries of that doctrine, and the fact that it did not originate with this version of the SCOTUS.
I'm curious, though, what your take is on Citizens United, given your interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Do you interpret the First Amendment the same way?
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 02:06pm PT
|
I don't consider multi-national corporations as entities in need of First Amendment protections.
Americans have a long-standing aversion to such influences on the political process, and with good reason.
So New York Times v. Sullivan was wrongly decided because it vindicated First Amendment rights of a corporation?"
John
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 02:09pm PT
|
Coot, is Citizens United a "multi-national corporation"?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 02:14pm PT
|
Then your statement, apparently in response to JohnE's post, that:
"I don't consider multi-national corporations as entities in need of First Amendment protections"
was simply non-responsive/irrelevant? Kind of like most of you other posts?
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 03:30pm PT
|
This is not a good decision.
I'm sure the ACLU is all over this, as well as the CCR.
Good reasons for joining and supporting these organizations, without which we would have no Constitution or Bill of Rights to speak of at this very moment.
With these Unconstitutional powers, what is to stop corrupt law enforcement officers and agencies of any kind from targeting someone that they want to target, for whatever made-up political or activist reason?
Perhaps you speak truth to power too much and they feel you have to be silenced. So they decide they are going to raid your home and plant evidence of any illegal kind to frame you.
With Unwarranted searches (and even warranted searches) they can barge in for any reason and excuse, and in the process of looking for something they want to find you with, they plant the evidence while searching. Bingo! They find it. Now they have "the evidence" that they wanted to find on you or within your home, and now they arrest you and pull you in.
They wanted to silence you politically or for whatever made-up reason and now they have effectively.
Do law enforcement agencies and officers ever do this?
Do Bears poop in the woods?
I will never forget what happened to me and a friend at a road block in Bluff, Utah in the 70s. I will never forget. Cops can do illegal, immoral, and unethical things, and they do.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 04:12pm PT
|
Whoopie!
Take that, Libtards!
The people I know who smoke seem to be very evenly split between left and right.
It's not really a partisan issue.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 06:57pm PT
|
Warrants Let Agents Enter Homes Without Owner Knowing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4854357
Source: KOAT
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- A special type of government search warrant that allows authorities to search homes without informing the owner for months is becoming more common, Target 7 has learned.
Imagine someone walking through your neighborhood, coming into your home and rifling through your intimate belongings.
“(They) search through your home, your dresser drawers, your computer files,” Peter Simonson, with ACLU New Mexico, said.
These search warrants don’t involve knocking on doors or any type of warning at all. Delayed-notice search warrants, or "sneak-and-peek" warrants, allow federal agents to enter your home without telling you they’ve been there until months later.
http://www.koat.com/news/27922147/detail.html#ixzz1MdoLic15
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 07:07pm PT
|
Here is another article on the OP . . .
This is all truly wrong, unethical, immoral, and UnConstitutional.
It is absolute Bull Dung.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1115782
While you weren't looking - the Supreme Court eliminated the 4th Amendment today
Supreme Court gives police a new entryway into homes
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday gave police more leeway to break into residences in search of illegal drugs.
The justices in an 8-1 decision said officers who loudly knock on a door and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.
Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
In a lone dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case will give police an easy way to ignore the 4th Amendment. "Police officers may not knock, listen and then break the door down," she said, without violating the 4th Amendment.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sc-dc-0517-court-search-20110516,0,5858981.story
|
|
atchafalaya
Boulder climber
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 07:12pm PT
|
"I'm sure the ACLU is all over this, as well as the CCR.
Good reasons for joining and supporting these organizations"
Actually, it would be money wasted. Its over, 8 justices decided the issue. No amount of moaning, hand-wringing and cash will change their decision.
You have no idea what your rights are or when they are violated.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 07:15pm PT
|
klimmer, that's a WARRANT, which means due process was followed
the scotus ruling doesn't change anything, it simply tries to clarify the reach of existing law with an 8-1 decision, which means, coot, there are 3 libs on the court who "defend this"
the irony: if the residents had simply opened the door and refused the police entry without a warrant, then the police would be barred BY LAW from searching the apartment = no arrest = no trial = no libs screeching about robocops
ignorance of the law is not a defense so all you drug users out there now know how to respond LEGALLY if the police come knocking without a warrant
|
|
lostinshanghai
Social climber
someplace
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 08:42pm PT
|
Homeland Security project or experimental a year back maybe 2 years ago in Northeast area of the country was and most could likely implemented now from the program in other cities as well but do not know.
It goes like this: 911 call: paramedics/Fire Department/police comes to house. Maybe heart attack, spousal abuse, kids not supervised, noise complaint from neighbors, whatever. Ok! Responders [police, fire, medics]gets access into house, take care of what is happening but also are allowed to look around, walls, tables, and other rooms to look for terrorist or extremist literature laying around, pictures on doors/walls, smoking paraphilia, and just about anything that looks like a threat or possible wrong doing now or in the future. They are required to write it down or take notes and then report it to their local police/FBI/DHS for further action or analysis.
So always good to have a picture of both Bush and Obama on the walls and now picture of Bin Laden with dart or bye-bye, so long take it easy written on the poster. Everything else hide or put away before they come. Beer, booze, hockey, baseball or football on TV OK! Just make sure you look like the typical American family. Shot guns, pistols, rifles ok as well. No automatic machineguns unless you have license.
Praise our police, fire and medics out to help us. Then wait for the raid.
God bless UnAmerica.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!