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 ...
A system of surveillance was put in place with bi-partisan support and with the support of vast majority of the people. People chose security over privacy. Now the system evolved and the same people are bitching.
I've been studying Jefferson for years and I respectfully disagree.
Justice Scalia is trying to influence the appeals court.
December 16, 2013
A federal judge ruled Monday that the National Security Agency’s daily collection of virtually all Americans’ phone records is almost certainly unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon found that a lawsuit by Larry Klayman, a conservative legal activist, has “demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success” on the basis of Fourth Amendment privacy protections against unreasonable searches.
The U.S. Government has appealed.
He defends the TSA. All I need to know. He’s in the tank too.
So, an unknown fear is so great that it must supersede our natural rights?
Let me propose to the associate justice that there exists a boogeyman. We cannot tell you what this boogeyman is, or how great it is, or what it does, but we can assure you that it may or may not destroy the entire United States *unless* the Supreme Court of the United States is abolished.
Does this clarify things for him?
Unless the SCOTUS ceases to exist, the “monster” wins, or maybe not. It is a totally faith based monster.
Or maybe if an associate justice looks in a mirror and says “Boogeyman” three times, then the boogeyman comes forth and destroys America. Or maybe not.
It is the magic-based American justice system. It is not a way for a Supreme Court to function.
In a year holding a three, or seven,
or five, or nine, or maybe not,
Two things, might be people, or armies,
or buildings,
Or anything really, blades of grass,
or stoats, or crapulous charlatans
spouting mimsy,
Might do something nebulous.
Insert made-up-bit here.
—Generic Nostradamus Quatrain from
“The Guardian” newspaper
What's a "freedom"?
A Right?
Or a Privilege?
It’s foolish to keep such ninnies in our Supreme Court.
Whatever the government says it is at any point in time. Better have a gun the way this sounds.
I wasn't cheering it but will admit I trusted the gov not to intrude on my privacy. I also trusted the gov not to allow this once great country to be taken over by an evil usurper with their full support and approval. I trusted the GOP not to keep putting up obvious losers and not pimp for communism. I trusted the SCOTUS not to "evade" the eligibility question. I trusted our leaders to keep our Constitution and freedoms sacred. I was naive, stupid and very wrong.
I’m looking at the trend of the court to mold law rather than interpret it. Numerous statements from Kagan and Sotomayor have been little more than activist rhetoric and the twisted opinion from John Roberts turning the Democrat Commerce Clause argument on ACA into one of taxation was bizarre, to me. I am agreeing with Mark Levin on the need to end the lifetime status of Supremes.
” I trusted the gov not to intrude on my privacy.”
People trust their government from time to time, especially if the government is perceived to be conveniently tied to their cause — whatever that might be.
Libtards did not trust the gubmint during Patriot act, while conservatives were hung-ho about it.
Now, Libtards deeply trust their gubmint when it comes to their healthcare, while conservatives are vehemently against it.
The bottomline is that people play games and they get the government they deserve.
A Right?
Or a Privilege?
Freedom would include both rights and privileges.
There are inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property which are inherent in being a living person, and there are also privileges, such as the freedom to operate a motor vehicle on public highways or perform surgery on someone, which government may regulate.
They are all freedoms.
White Hut must have the goods on Scaalia, same as Roberts. Blackmail is an ugly thing.
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.
I believe the same as Scalia and quite frankly, Scalia’s ego has always scared me
Starting to feel as though you have no one on your side? me to
No one should have a lifetime appointment. Give them a 10 year appointment and every two years replace one of them.
It violates the prohibition on general warrants.
Bush made a mockery of it. More jobs for Grand Ole Elitist and taking the GOP further left with the help of a two house GOP-E majority who wasted a once in a lifetime change to bring needed change. GWB's A.G. Wanted to keep databases on us and OUR activities remember?
But, since then all sorts of changes incurred to make the system dangerous to the everyday citizen. As an example, when Bush left office, NSA could only monitor calls which had a foreign leg. Now both legs can be domestic. That is a big difference.
It was a disaster under Smirks tenure including the two house loss. Too many Republicans was as in love with him as a 13 year old boy discovering girls. Bush could do no wrong in their eyes. Woe unto anyone who disagreed with W. How dare Bush be questioned. You are for Bush are for the terrorist kind of crap was posted even in here. GWB and his two house majority of GOP-E Stooges along with His Friends like Rove helped put in office expanding the federal governments agencies and Executive Powers is how Obama obtained the abuses of powers he uses today. Many posted this was going to happen including myself.
GW Bush was not an asset to the Right Wing GOP nor by any means the Constitutional Conservative cause.
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.
