FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 04/19/2014 2:49:04 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Thursday in an interview conducted at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg talked about their views of the First Amendment. Moderator Marvin Kalb questioned Scalia about whether the NSA wiretapping cloud be conceivably be in violation of the Constitution:
Justice Antonin Scalia said, "No because it's not absolute. As Ruth has said there are very few freedoms that are absolute. I mean your person is protected by the Fourth Amendment but as I pointed out when you board a plane someone can pass his hands all over your body that's a terrible intrusion, but given the danger that it's guarding against it's not an unreasonable intrusion. And it can be the same thing with acquiring this data that is regarded as effects. That's why I say its foolish to have us make the decision because I don't know how serious the danger is in this NSA stuff, I really don't."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Gotta say, Judge, I am disappointed in this.
I’m in a small minority that thinks the Supreme Court is ill equipped to make any decisions.
Part of the solution or part of the problem? Pretty clear he is part of the problem.
“it’s not an unreasonable intrusion.”
It is funny that 99% of Free Republic was cheering for Patriot Act back then, calling libtards as anti-Americans for not going with the fed gubmint schemes.
P.S. I know "the freedom of speech" is specifically referring to a compact between individuals and society, based on the writings of Locke and Blackstone among others, a "deal" that society would protect the freedom of individuals to state that which they believed to be true based on evidence and reason, and that individuals in return would only state that which they had reason to believe to be true and which protected the life, liberty, and property of others--that is why libel and slander are not protected by the First Amendment. Nevertheless, the Fourth Amendment protection is against "unreasonable search and seizure," while the First Amendment protection is much closer to absolute, as close as possible without turning the Constitution into a suicide pact.
And he is supposed to be one of the few on our side... God help us!
His imagination is dead.
What does not infringe mean?
Because SCOTUS doesn’t do that anymore??
Well...the constitution formed the SCOTUS, and it can undo it.
Time to flush the SC toilet. If Scalia can’t figure out what’s intrusive to our freedoms, he needs to take a remedial course in Constitutional law. He best do it quick before we send the 101st Airborne to sort out the traitors from the patriots at the NSA.
The SC is part of the elite. They were appointed by the elite and approved by the elite. We the people are peasants who are allowed to survive to do their bidding.
"As a political gesture to the Anti-Federalists, a gesture highlighted by the Second Amendment's prefatory reference to the value of a well-regulated militia, express recognition of the right to arms was something of a sop. But the provision was easily accepted because everyone agreed that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."
- "To Keep and Bear Arms"
Yeah. Scalia is a friend of America and the Right. *major eyeroll*
I said the same thing years ago, when Scalia was stating that the State’s could actually decide if “abortion” was allowed or not. The State had the “Right” to vote away the “Right to Life” of other human beings-—where science KNEW babies were individual, separate human beings, from the mother.
Something is terribly WRONG, when Reason and Logic is removed from words and language and WORDS aren’t absolute. The Founders meant specific provable things by language, which is being twisted and made irrational.
The Constitution’s embedded Natural Rights from God ARE absolute. Don’t know what Scalia “thinks” unalienable means. Our Rights come from God and we don’t NEED the State to give us PERMISSION-—which is what this Socialist State is doing.....which is in violation of our Natural Rights, which precede the Constitution and are “unalienable”. (Definition: IMPOSSIBLE to take away or give away). That is as “absolute” as it gets.
Such evil Marxist “progressive” “thinking” which throws out Logic. Justice Thomas is the Natural Law Theory expert, so I have been told. It is the Lockean philsophy, which undergirds everything in our Constitution. They are replacing Locke with Marx INTENTIONALLY.
I don’t have an issue with the NSA spying on anyone outside of the United States. They have no business spying on American citizens on U.S. soil.
And before anyone jumps on me about naturalized terrorists, I don’t think we should be naturalizing anyone who abides by Sharia law. Racist? Yeah, and? Know any other religions whose adherents want to kill us?
Regarding how the Constitution should be interpreted, Thomas Jefferson had put it this way.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
Yes, Scalia, has been a very good friend. When he hears proper arguments about the dangers of NSA spying on citizens, he’ll make the right decision.
He says he doesn’t know right now. I trust that’s because he is lacking specific information. When it’s brought to his attention, he’ll weigh it carefully.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.