Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power - 5/17/2011 7:05:59 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline 		I got this in email yesterday and thought about posting a thread about it, but haven't had the time. I am going to link it here because I think it fits in with your thread better. The whole situation is just really fucked up. I am waiting for the next announcement that we will be outlawing toilets

http://pondalee.com/srf.htm


_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power - 5/17/2011 7:30:51 AM   
eihwaz


Posts: 367
Joined: 10/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
I am waiting for the next announcement that we will be outlawing toilets

All material entering a toilet will have to be retained and stored indefinitely in anticipation of possible future law enforcement interest.

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power - 5/17/2011 8:34:59 AM   
MarcEsadrian


Posts: 852
Joined: 8/24/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
What sort of confuses me is this Court is supposed to be conservative. Isn't the conservative stance less government in our lives?

Is that what conservatism means? I once thought it did too, but since the last republican administration, I haven't been so sure. Alito, who I believe was nominated by George W. Bush, stands as quite the exemplar of fascism with his cavalier remarks about constructing yet another pass for infringing the 4th being "entirely lawful".

Given that fascism is authoritarian, nationalistic and often right-wing, the decisions coming from the "conservative court" are true to form. Keep in mind this is also the same court that decided it's unconstitutional to limit monies corporations can contribute to political campaigns (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission).

_____________________________

Omnes una manet nox

Founder, Humbled Females

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power - 5/17/2011 11:14:48 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
What sort of confuses me is this Court is supposed to be conservative. Isn't the conservative stance less government in our lives?

Is that what conservatism means? I once thought it did too, but since the last republican administration, I haven't been so sure. Alito, who I believe was nominated by George W. Bush, stands as quite the exemplar of fascism with his cavalier remarks about constructing yet another pass for infringing the 4th being "entirely lawful".

Given that fascism is authoritarian, nationalistic and often right-wing, the decisions coming from the "conservative court" are true to form. Keep in mind this is also the same court that decided it's unconstitutional to limit monies corporations can contribute to political campaigns (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission).


Which political party gave us the Patriot Act? And which political party said "Your either with us, or against us"? Finally, which political party routinely uses fear, dishonesty, warmongering, and hatred to get what it wants?

And people STILL vote Republican....

(in reply to MarcEsadrian)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power - 5/17/2011 11:50:20 AM   
SternSkipper


Posts: 7546
Joined: 3/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

I've heard it enough times, that it doesn't matter what the Constitution says, what matters is what the court says it says. While this is not good news, it's not unexpected. To review :

The first anemdment doesn't mean you can shout fire in a crowded theater. It seems not to mean a few other things now. You may hate the National Alliance even though they don't hate you, but when they sent out mailers, what happened ? People looked hard for a way to bust them for it. They didn't find one, but things they are a changin'. It's only a matter of time really until you won't be able to say bad things about politicians, true or not. Of course this court has also ruled that politicians as well as the media have the right to lie to the People. Who do you imagine they're working for ?

The second amendment doesn't mean a few things either, that's obvious. The words "shall not be adridged" apparently aren't in the English language now, because if they were their meaning would be quite clear.

The third amendment hasn't really been tested, as far as I know. If it is, how do you think they are going to interpret "as prescribed by law" ? If anything is subject to interpretation, think of the words "compelling public interest". Hell, with eminent domain they don't need your permission to come and stake out or live in your house, they can just take it away and throw you out anyway.

The OP has dealt with the fourth. Anything I would write would be a waste of time.
Blah, blah, blah, ... blah, blah... Blah Blah .....


Dude... what I think you need to take away from this is that you need to get your ass down to home depot right away and buy some really fucking heavy doors for your house.... Cause if as you imply, you are true to your persona off this site.... My guess is the cops aren't real fond of you

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power - 5/17/2011 12:26:27 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

Which political party gave us the Patriot Act?
Well Bush was in office, but I would have to do some research to find out exactly who voted it in. Well I would if I cared that much. Not sure what the point would be.

And which political party said "Your either with us, or against us"?
I believe that was Bush, although it had been used many times before him. Do you not believe that is true?

Finally, which political party routinely uses fear, dishonesty, warmongering, and hatred to get what it wants?
The liberals with you leading the pack and the conservatives with gator boy  and everyone in between.


_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power - 5/17/2011 12:59:24 PM   
SternSkipper


Posts: 7546
Joined: 3/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

"Your either with us, or against us"


Awesome Walter Brennan imitation Dubya did that day.

Here's what I wanna know How did they come up with a document 342 pages, not including about twice that many in amendments to other, already laws, in less than two weeks (1st draft) and it took YEARS to produce the health care reform. My guess is it already existed.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power - 5/17/2011 1:01:16 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		Passed the House on October 24, 2001 (Yeas: 357; Nays: 66)
Passed the Senate on October 25, 2001 (Yeas: 98; Nays: 1)
Signed into law by President Bush on October 26, 2001

Seems almost all were in agreement and passes the Patriot Act.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power - 5/17/2011 1:02:20 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		"Dude... what I think you need to take away from this is that you need to get your ass down to home depot right away and buy some really fucking heavy doors for your house.... Cause if as you imply, you are true to your persona off this site.... My guess is the cops aren't real fond of you "

I see your point, but I don't see how it responded to what you quoted. The fact is that in the last fifteen years they have treated me with respect. There was that sentence last year, but other than that I haven't seen the inside of a jail for a very long time. I think a big part of it is how one handles themself.

There was one who had a hardon for me and my crowd, and he just retired. He actually busted a friend of mine in my car. From what I heard it was quite an interesting exchange. The rest of them seem to leave me alone. But really, do you know what to do when you get stopped ? There is a specific way to handle it, and it does NOT involve mentioning the Constitution. That is not the time. It may or may not EVER be the time, it depends on alot of things.

And all my exterior doors are solid. But it's only recently that I strarted locking them when at home. Also, you can't hear the toilets flush from outside. I still wonder what kind of apartment this was in the OP's article. Must've been a fine establishment eh ?

T^T

(in reply to SternSkipper)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power - 5/17/2011 1:04:37 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

"Your either with us, or against us"


Awesome Walter Brennan imitation Dubya did that day.

Here's what I wanna know How did they come up with a document 342 pages, not including about twice that many in amendments to other, already laws, in less than two weeks (1st draft) and it took YEARS to produce the health care reform. My guess is it already existed.



1) Its Military in scope... so automatic agreement.
2) Fear played a massive part in getting it passed so quickly.
3) It fed into the pockets of those who were in power... unlike health care reform which will hurt those who are in congress.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to SternSkipper)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power - 5/17/2011 1:06:20 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		"Here's what I wanna know How did they come up with a document 342 pages, not including about twice that many in amendments to other, already laws, in less than two weeks (1st draft) and it took YEARS to produce the health care reform. My guess is it already existed. "

Absolutely. It's also "guessed" that the plan for Iraq 2 was in place well before the 9/11 attacks.

T^T

(in reply to SternSkipper)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power - 5/17/2011 1:32:00 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Passed the House on October 24, 2001 (Yeas: 357; Nays: 66)
Passed the Senate on October 25, 2001 (Yeas: 98; Nays: 1)
Signed into law by President Bush on October 26, 2001

Seems almost all were in agreement and passes the Patriot Act.


Thank you so much. Next time I have to write a paper, I am going to look you up. You rock when it comes to finding shit online


_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power - 5/17/2011 1:52:34 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline 		You notice that the conservatives on the court voted for this?

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power - 5/17/2011 1:53:27 PM   
SternSkipper


Posts: 7546
Joined: 3/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Which political party gave us the Patriot Act?
Well Bush was in office, but I would have to do some research to find out exactly who voted it in. Well I would if I cared that much. Not sure what the point would be.


Let me save you the brain blisters... it had VERY FEW DISSENTERS in either house. But republicans had a basically fillibuster proof majority AND there was excruciating pressure on everyone to not be 'un-american'

But anyway, the voting itself was the saddest chapter EVER in the history of the united states:

(well, except maybe for the fact that the governor and secretary of state for florida weren't brought to justice for their complicity in election fraud on november 2nd 2000... See the GOP were all over Clinton each time he went after Bin Laden's strongholds and accused him of wagging the dog if he did anything militarily, the important thing being of course a fucking BLOWJOB and his willing to fess up to it... only to kiss the MORON president's ass in some phony patriotic act of executive sympathy later on for the president who read the reports, said fuck it, and let more than 3000-PLUS  Americans, become deceased poster children for his re-election insurance ) And along comes John Ashcroft and Viet Dinh (forgive me if I spelled that little piece of shit's name wrong, because illiciting an apology for it would be a fools errand on the reader's part) and they produce the 'miracle document' that has saved America... So anyway "Well I would if I cared that much.", bend over, cause here comes your list:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 398 (Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
      H R 3162      2/3 YEA-AND-NAY      24-Oct-2001      11:05 AM
      QUESTION:  On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
      BILL TITLE: To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world


Yeas Nays PRES NV Republican 211 3   5 Democratic 145 62   4 Independent 1 1     TOTALS 357 66   9

---- YEAS    357 --- (These 357 House members voted in Favor of the 2001 Patriot Act)
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wynn
Young (FL)

---- NAYS    66 --- (These 66 House members voted against the 2001 Patriot Act)
Baldwin
Barrett
Blumenauer
Bonior
Boucher
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Clayton
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Dingell
Farr
Filner
Frank
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Nadler
Ney
Oberstar
Olver
Otter
Owens
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Rahall
Rivers
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Stark
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wu

---- NOT VOTING    9 ---
Abercrombie
Bilirakis
Burton
Clay
Cubin
Hansen
Hill
Kilpatrick
Young (AK)
****
House Vote Roll Call on 2006 Patriot Act Renewal on March 7, 2006
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll020.xml
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 20 (Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
 S 2271      2/3 YEA-AND-NAY      7-Mar-2006      7:16 PM
 QUESTION:  On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
 BILL TITLE: USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act


Yeas Nays PRES NV Republican 214 13   3 Democratic 66 124   11 Independent   1     TOTALS 280 138   14

---- YEAS    280 --- (These 280 House members voted in favor of the 2006 Patriot Act Reauthorizing)
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (FL)

---- NAYS    138 ---(These 138 House members voted against the 2006 Patriot Act Reauthorizing)
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carson
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Velázquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)

---- NOT VOTING    14 ---
Burton (IN)
Costa
Cuellar
Davis (FL)
Evans
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hinojosa
Johnson, Sam
Meeks (NY)
Payne
Reyes
Sweeney
Wexler


(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power - 5/17/2011 1:57:42 PM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline 		Q: What does destroying evidence sound like?

A: Whatever the cop needs it to sound like.


Little by little our rights are being chipped away.

< Message edited by Marc2b -- 5/17/2011 1:58:27 PM >

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power - 5/17/2011 2:08:03 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline 		So the world the Supreme Court inhabits has exchanges like this:

*Knock Knock* PO-LICE!

You: I heard you. You're the police. GO AWAY. You have no permission to be here.

PO-LICE: Ok, we understand you're claiming your rights, and are leaving now.

It must be nice to live in a fantasy-world like that...



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power - 5/17/2011 2:21:47 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

You notice that the conservatives on the court voted for this?


It was an 8 - 1 decision. There aren't 8 conservative judges on that court.

John Glover Roberts, Jr. (born January 27, 1955) is the 17th and current Chief Justice of the United States. He has served since 2005, having been nominated by President George W. Bush after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He has been described as having a conservative judicial philosophy in his jurisprudence.

Antonin Gregory Scalia (pronounced /skəˈliːə/ ( listen); born March 11, 1936) is an American jurist who serves as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. As the longest-serving justice on the Court, Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice. Appointed to the Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia has been described as the intellectual anchor of the Court's conservative wing.

Anthony McLeod Kennedy (born July 23, 1936) is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, having been appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1988. Since the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, Kennedy has often been the swing vote on many of the Court's politically charged 5–4 decisions. Conservatives have felt betrayed by some of his decisions, but other observers say he reaches conservative results more often than not.[3][4][5]

Clarence Thomas........ Since joining the Court, Thomas has taken a textualist approach to judging, seeking to uphold what he sees as the original meaning of the United States Constitution and statutes. He is generally viewed as among the most conservative members of the Court. Thomas has often approached federalism issues in a way that limits the power of the federal government and expands power of state and local governments. At the same time, Thomas's opinions have generally supported a strong executive branch within the federal government.

Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg (born March 15, 1933) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Ginsburg was appointed by President Bill Clinton and took the oath of office on August 10, 1993. Generally, she votes with the liberal wing of the Court. She is the second female justice (after Sandra Day O'Connor) and the first Jewish female justice.

Stephen Gerald Breyer ( /ˈbraɪər/; born August 15, 1938) is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1994, and known for his pragmatic approach to constitutional law, Breyer is generally associated with the more liberal side of the Court.[1]

Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. (pronounced /əˈliːtoʊ/; born April 1, 1950) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President George W. Bush and has served on the court since January 31, 2006.[1]Raised in Hamilton Township, New Jersey and educated at Princeton University and Yale Law School, Alito served as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey and a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit prior to joining the Supreme Court. He is the 110th justice, the second Italian American and the eleventh Roman Catholic to serve on the court. Alito has been described by the Cato Institute as a conservative jurist with a libertarian streak.[2]

Sonia Maria Sotomayor (English pronunciation: /ˈsoʊnjə ˌsoʊtoʊmaɪˈjɔr/, Spanish: [ˈsonja sotomaˈʝor];[3] born June 25, 1954) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, serving since August 2009. Sotomayor is the Court's 111th justice, its first Hispanic justice, and its third female justice......... I do believe she is considered liberal


Elena Kagan (pronounced /ˈkeɪɡən/; born April 28, 1960)[3] is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, serving since August 7, 2010. Kagan is the Court's 112th justice and fourth female justice....... She seems to be an unknown in how she would make decisions


All this just points to the fact that the 8-1 decision making included both sides.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power - 5/17/2011 2:33:14 PM   
eihwaz


Posts: 367
Joined: 10/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper
Here's what I wanna know How did they come up with a document 342 pages, not including about twice that many in amendments to other, already laws, in less than two weeks (1st draft) and it took YEARS to produce the health care reform. My guess is it already existed.

The DoJ had a preexisting wishlist it had been accumulating for years.

(in reply to SternSkipper)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power - 5/17/2011 2:41:12 PM   
Aneirin


Posts: 6121
Joined: 3/18/2006
From: Tamaris
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

Wake up and smell the roses, it's all a conspiracy, we are all being herded into a situation where we just accept, it is happening worldwide, and fear, is one of the motivators, create fear and people suddenlybecome very malleable.

But as another said to me recently on here, the constitution is not cast in stone, but open to ammendment by the Law profession and that dependant on the prevailing conditions of life as it affects..... erm, whoever ?

Always question authority, as to accept without question will be our undoing.


We are coming from different viewpoints.

I am disagreeing with a Court judgment and you are trying to inflate it to something beyond that.




I am known in employment as a troubleshooter, my strength is identifying worst case scenarios and it is that which I guard against, so, my thinking also extends to other areas of life, and this, this instance is but one instance that has caused some people to question, and questioning is a good thing, because it then makes you aware that there will be more to be questioned.

You see the powers that be rely on the fact that they in their capacity are trusted by the common man, which then opens the door to abuse by those who wish to abuse because of the trust placed upon them due to their capacity. What is happening here, is things that have caused people to question, something that perhaps the trusted didn't count on, or if they did, they expected it to fizzle out, as it usually does, but those that see wrong in this should follow it up and continue questioning, because if wrong action is being committed even unknowingly, people outside of the situation might wake the dormant brains up.

As to my ability to foresee disaster, I say what in say because disaster will happen, if people are complacent, as I said, I guard against worse case scenarios, so I not of your country, but for the sakes of those whom I know, question, if you see wrong, always question, for if you don't what may become upon you in maybe a short while or even years to come, is something distasteful and impossible to reverse without dire intervention and none but the unsound of mind want that.

I say again, always question authority and keep on questioning it to keep it on the straight and narrow.

_____________________________

Everything we are is the result of what we have thought, the mind is everything, what we think, we become - Guatama Buddha

Conservatism is distrust of people tempered by fear - William Gladstone

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power - 5/17/2011 2:47:25 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

This is the part that scares me, how we have Supreme Court Justices with such a distorted sense of reasoning:



The Supreme Court heard an appeal from state prosecutors and reversed the ruling in Kentucky vs. King. Alito said the police conduct in this case "was entirely lawful," and they were justified in breaking down the door to prevent the destruction of the evidence.

"When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen may do," he wrote. A resident need not respond, he added. But the sounds of people moving and perhaps toilets being flushed could justify police entering without a warrant, he added.


The lesson here, is if you have a knock at the door, sit very very quietly. Even if you have to pee your pants, just don't move. For heaven's sake, don't flush your own toilet!


I wonder, how long can the cops stand outside your door waiting for you to answer it? Are they subject having the police called on them for trespassing, if they do not have a search warrant, they should not be able to stand around all night waiting for someone to flush a toilet! And since when are we compelled to answer our door to the police if they do not possess a search warrant? This is just utter bullshit.

This ruling is just ill conceived

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The 4th Amendment losing its power Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.141