 |
2nd Light Forums |
 |
 |
 |
|
join :
help :
calendar :
home
|
||
|
Latest News:
|
latest topics : statistics | |
Balsa Bills
Surfboards by Sammy Barker
Stealth Fishing Rods
Banana River Cafe
|
Topic Title: Strip-Search Case Reflects Death of American Privacy Topic Summary: Justice Kennedy's 5-4 opinion sure to upset liberals, much more so if he's the swing vote on killing ObamaCare Created On: 04/09/2012 05:57 PM Status: Post and Reply |
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch |
 Topic Tools
|
04/09/2012 05:57 PM
|
|
|
Another brick in the wall of privacy and civil rights goes missing. |
|
|
|
|
|
04/09/2012 06:27 PM
|
|
|
Already had a thread on that. You call it a Kennedy decision. What about Roberts (Chief right?), Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. It is obvious where the freedom loving conservatives stand. ------------------------- ... |
|
|
|
|
|
04/09/2012 06:42 PM
|
|
|
Cons. and their "Less Government" what ever/ you rightwing pieces of shit/
|
|
|
|
|
|
04/09/2012 07:00 PM
|
|
|
Sorry, but I called it nothing. I simply posted a link to a story about privacy. |
|
|
|
|
|
04/10/2012 02:23 AM
|
|
|
^^^^^^
Tahole's spineless turd post of the day. Hey Tahole,where were you when they decided illegal wiretaps and loss of habeas corpus was OK? Oh, that's right, Its OK when the Republicans do it. Douche. |
|
|
|
|
|
04/10/2012 05:08 AM
|
|
|
Tell us again when the illegal wiretaps and loss of habeas corpus took place. Do you mean during the Patriot Act that was written by Congress? Of the tens of thousands, perhaps millions, of phone calls listened-in on, how many were found by the courts to be illegal? (Answer: Three.) How many people actually lost their right to habeas corpus, for what crimes were they detained, and just who were they? (Answer: A very few, and all "enemy combatants" following 9-11 and the hunt for al Qaeda and Usama bin Laden.) Remember: Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and, druing World War II, FDR authorized J Edgar Hoover to listen in on practically every telephone conversation being made... without a warrant.
Edited: 04/10/2012 at 05:40 AM by MaloTurista |
|
|
|
|
|
04/10/2012 05:43 AM
|
|
|
Isn't this story weeks old?
You need a more current news source Tahoeskiphreak. ------------------------- "Born fine the first time." |
|
|
|
|
|
04/10/2012 06:08 AM
|
|
|
^^^ It's from BLOOMBERG, dated April 8, 2012. The story itself focuses on Kennedy and his votes on two issues recently before SCOTUS, and on one whose decision is right now being written. Ancillary to Kennedy is the issue of personal privacy (Fourth and Fifth Amendments apply), specifically that of "strip searches." If you've paid attention to the transformation of acceptable civil liberties (from the Obama government we get the famous "If you're in public, you've no expectation of privacy"), you'll no doubt have noticed that, as Grandpa used to say, "Things a'int like they used to be." This troubles some people. Sadly, it doesn't seem to concern the dullards. It will when and if it happens to them, but for the now they're content to just move through life ignorant of what's going on. And that's a damned shame. |
|
|
|
|
|
04/10/2012 06:18 AM
|
|
|
Another win for a authoritarin Empire another loss for a constitional Republic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
04/10/2012 06:49 AM
|
|
|
@foamdust: Finally somebody understands why I've been posting article after article about the creeping loss of our personal freedoms. Thanks for noticing. And, yes, children, the larger the goverment grows, the more of your personal privacy goes up in smoke. All because they give you sweeter lollipops and promises of dreams sprinkled with pixie dust. Don't worry: they'll never run out of pixie dust. Well, not before they've stripped you of what rights you thought you had. |
|
|
|
|
|
04/10/2012 07:05 AM
|
|
|
Tell us again when the illegal wiretaps and loss of habeas corpus took place. During the Bush Administration you constantly and conveniently forget about. Was that when you were destroying your lungs smoking crack? Don't bother replying, we already know the answer. |
|
|
|
|
|
04/10/2012 08:42 AM
|
|
|
Trip down memory lane: http://www.2ndlight.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=4&threadid=136747&highlight_key=y In the thread where "libs" were criticizing this particular SCOTUS decision Tahoe contributed the following lectures on constitutional law.
Why is it that the libs refuse to accept the reality that the Supreme Court does one thing, and one thing only: It rules on whether the law, as written and/or applied, is constitutional. It does not rule on the touchy-feel nuances of what makes Andy angry or Mary mad, or whether the social implication is good or bad for the disadvantaged; it only concerns itself with the contritutionality of the law. Period. Does the Constitution allow for this, disallow for that, or come across as too vague to allow for a YES or NO decision? If a law contravenes the Constrituion, it is deemed unconsitutional; if it complies with the constitution, it is upheld. Really, how much simpler can things be?
America is how old? And there have been how many decisions upholding or overturning laws passed by Congress? And of those laws so handled, there have been how many with detractors on one side and supporters on the other, long after the SCOTUS handed down its ruling? Now, tell us, long years after decisions both popular and unpopular were reached, has this great nation's system of law ever faltered, ever failed its citizens, because of what the SCOTUS did? Even the Dred Scott v Sandford case, wherein the SCOTUS ruled 7-2 against Scotts claim of citizenship, was eventually made moot by Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, and by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments. The law *must* be periodically tested by either challenge or affirmation. There can be no finer, no more exacting, test than that of its constitutionality. As far as our Republic is concerned, no body of our government is more eminently --nay, constitutionally-- designed and designated than the U.S. Supreme Court. You may wish to visit this site to learn more about the role of the government, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court. ------------------------- ... |
|
|
|
|
|
04/10/2012 08:55 AM
|
|
|
most pathetic nsr post ever ------------------------- "The Republican Party of Eisenhower and Rockefeller has vanished, and in its place has come a hard-right, anti-government, socially conservative, economically extreme-liberal party that somehow manages to convey a combination of callousness and nastiness almost as a matter of pride." |
|
|
|
|
|
04/10/2012 10:18 AM
|
|
|
To all you people whistling past the graveyard, guess what? The joke's on you. |
|
|
|
|
|
04/10/2012 10:23 AM
|
|
|
To all you people whistling past the graveyard, guess what? The joke's on you. New">http://www.infowars.com/new-mi...thin-centimeters/">New Microchip Knows Your Location To WITHIN CENTIMETERS From the guy who said last week I was encroaching on Cocheech's territory? How would the free market handle this? I turn the GPS off in my phone. ------------------------- That boy's got somethin' wrong with his medulla oblongata. |
|
|
|
|
|
04/10/2012 10:27 AM
|
|
|
malo tahoe drinks all day wake and slake what do you expect ------------------------- "The Republican Party of Eisenhower and Rockefeller has vanished, and in its place has come a hard-right, anti-government, socially conservative, economically extreme-liberal party that somehow manages to convey a combination of callousness and nastiness almost as a matter of pride." |
|
|
|
|
|
04/10/2012 11:55 AM
|
|
|
So, citizen, tell us: What are you trying to hide? |
|
|
|
|
FuseTalk Basic Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2013 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.