Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

What a weird coalition - From the SCOTUS website...

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

1 posted on 04/22/2014 10:41:08 AM PDT by BigEdLB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: BigEdLB

thomas vs scalia? Weird times


2 posted on 04/22/2014 10:44:42 AM PDT by Mount Athos (A Giant luxury mega-mansion for Gore, a Government Green EcoShack made of poo for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BigEdLB

Wow! Scalia joining the most liberal of Justices is simply bizarre.


3 posted on 04/22/2014 10:45:32 AM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BigEdLB

‘A Freedom-Destroying Cocktail’

Not ANOTHER ONE!!??


4 posted on 04/22/2014 10:45:36 AM PDT by SMARTY ("When you blame others, you give up your power to change." Robert Anthony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BigEdLB; All

There’s nothing to stop the police from giving anonymous tips to themselves.


5 posted on 04/22/2014 10:46:59 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BigEdLB; BuckeyeTexan
The description of the justices as "liberal" or "conservative" does not always play out that way, especially in criminal cases.

Thomas and Alito are "law and order" conservatives. They will almost never vote to find any search unconstitutional. Scalia can also sometimes be very pro-prosecution in criminal cases, but also sometimes (like today) has a bit of a libertarian streak.

On the "liberal" side of the Court, Kagan and Sotomayor are usually pro-defendant in criminal cases, but Breyer (often) and Ginsburg (sometimes) can be pro-prosecution.

6 posted on 04/22/2014 10:47:28 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BigEdLB
J'Accuse!!
7 posted on 04/22/2014 10:47:30 AM PDT by the_Watchman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BigEdLB

Time to clean house of these azzholes!


8 posted on 04/22/2014 10:47:37 AM PDT by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BigEdLB

What was Thomas thinking?


11 posted on 04/22/2014 10:51:40 AM PDT by Flame Retardant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BigEdLB

If a driver is merely suspected of reckless driving, what would be accomplished by pulling him over??

Now if someone ACCUSES him of reckless driving, and wishes to press the complaint by testifying in court, then file the complaint and let the case be heard. (Anonymous tips don’t enter into this picture, of course.)

Seems clear to me that this is all a smokescreen for abrogating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments - and a thin one at that (which says a lot about the state of affairs in this country.)


14 posted on 04/22/2014 10:57:16 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BigEdLB

This is a tough one and I can see it both ways.

I think the key is that it’s anonymous. So that you can use this to harass people.

What if I anonymously called and said you had a bomb and illegal guns in your house? The police raid you and find nothing. Who is held responsible for this activity? The police were just following up on an anonymous tip. Hell the police could even call it in themselves anonymously...no warrant needed. Call in an anonymous tip that some child is being kept in the basement...no need for a warrant now. Ooops we didn’t find any kids but we did find something else.


15 posted on 04/22/2014 10:59:26 AM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BigEdLB

Scalia is woried that the police could simply setup a checkpoint somewhere with a civilian hired by the police can sit there at the side of the road saying “That car look suspicious” and point at every car being made to go through the checkpoint.

Kagan and the other Liberal witches are looking to protect the dopers who vote Demoncraps, Scalia is looking to protect against unreasonable search and seizure...

Sometimes the “Law and Order Republicans” are as bad as the Statists who “Trust in the Government” when it comes to the power granted to the state...

This is one of those occasions...


18 posted on 04/22/2014 11:06:37 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BigEdLB

Need to start phoning in anonymous tips on government officials.


21 posted on 04/22/2014 11:12:03 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The best way to control opposition is to lead it ourselves." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BigEdLB

Thats along the same lines as; “I can search you and your car because my probable cause is I think you are acting suspicious”

“Whats your probable cause?”
“You’re acting funny.”


25 posted on 04/22/2014 11:25:57 AM PDT by envisio (Its on like Donkey Kong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BigEdLB

These terrorists hate us for our freedom! No, not the the terrorists hiding in a cave. There might be a dozen of those on a good day. I mean the ~600 terrorists hold up in the fever swamp on the Potomac.


27 posted on 04/22/2014 11:37:37 AM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BigEdLB

License to kill, given by the USSC, to every government agent.

An anonymous tipster says, that you have a firearm and waived it around before driving away.

Odds are, you are going to die ... that day ... and not have a clue during your few moments of confusion-compounding-terror preceding the “100 shots fired.”

Almost *no police officer* will believe your sputtering surprise at being attacked by an army.

The USSC decision is madness, to believe that police officers will as narrowly figure on the issue being a traffic stop for the purpose of making sure that you are sober ... as has the incredibly and suddenly extremely narrow imagination of the Justices.


28 posted on 04/22/2014 11:41:03 AM PDT by First_Salute (May God save our democratic-republican government, from a government by judiciary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BigEdLB; Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

36 posted on 04/22/2014 4:10:09 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BigEdLB

On some limited access roadways you see signs asking you to report aggressive drivers by dialing *77 (IIRC). That kind of anonymous tip probably saves lives.


37 posted on 04/23/2014 6:47:31 AM PDT by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed & water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BigEdLB

I wonder if any of these justices who voted for this drive a car? Anonymous swatting anyone?


40 posted on 04/23/2014 10:00:40 AM PDT by READINABLUESTATE ("If guns cause crime, there must be something wrong with mine." -Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson