FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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.
“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.
His imagination is dead.
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.
Yeah. Scalia is a friend of America and the Right. *major eyeroll*
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.
Sorry, Justice Scalia, but it’s a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.
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.
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.
White Hut must have the goods on Scaalia, same as Roberts. Blackmail is an ugly thing.
Bookmarked, very sadly bookmarked - - - - .
“unreasonable” - the often admitted term
and it IS a qualifying term
and all Scalia is saying he is not sure he, or the Court, really know what is “unreasonable” (searches and seizures) in “the NSA stuff”
it is also Scalia’s way of saying that IF it is agreed by enough of us that it is “unreasonable” then would not legislation be the way to say that
