...call me "hopeful" that Hussein's appointments of Sotomayor and Kagan are backfiring.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
To: Recovering_Democrat
This and the backup on SOPA is VERY IMPORTANT and is showing that in the internet/computer age, you have to be doubly vigilant to protect freedom.
2 posted on
01/23/2012 9:51:35 AM PST by
LS
To: Recovering_Democrat
I would like to see this extended to include the GPS data coming from my cell phone. Monitoring the GPS coordinates coming from my cell phone is no different than conducting a wire tap. Use of that data in a legal context should require an explicit warrant before the data is admissible as evidence in a legal proceeding.
3 posted on
01/23/2012 9:55:46 AM PST by
Myrddin
To: Recovering_Democrat
I’m actually surprised by the ruling, as the government has been only too happy to trample on our 4th amendment rights in the name of the so called “war on drugs”.
To: Recovering_Democrat
"...call me "hopeful" that Hussein's appointments of Sotomayor and Kagan are backfiring."
I don't think you can read that into this case. One would expect these Justices to take a very broad view of 4th amendment protections. Criminal law is the one place liberal justices are hostile to big, activist government. But don't get me wrong, I don't this this was that broad a reading of the 4th amendment and was pretty much an easy slam dunk decision on the result. Scalia has always been pretty good on the 4th amendment and it doesn't surprise me at all sided with the liberals on the Court here.
To: Recovering_Democrat
6 posted on
01/23/2012 9:59:23 AM PST by
redgolum
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
To: bamahead
13 posted on
01/23/2012 10:07:38 AM PST by
Gene Eric
(C'mon, Virginia -- are you with us or against us?!)
To: Recovering_Democrat
14 posted on
01/23/2012 10:09:08 AM PST by
abb
("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
To: Recovering_Democrat
uh..and what about the GPS I carry on my cell phone?
Can they track me on THAT without a warrent?
15 posted on
01/23/2012 10:09:08 AM PST by
G Larry
(We need Bare Knuckles Newt to fight this battle.)
To: Recovering_Democrat
Why the concern for the privacy of local drug dealers when the privacy of law abiding citizens is daily violated?
http://neighbors.whitepages.com/
What else do they know about us?
18 posted on
01/23/2012 10:15:15 AM PST by
353FMG
To: Recovering_Democrat
I suspect that Scalia is concerned about the rights of citizens against illegal search and seizure, whereas Sotomayor is probably concerned about the rights of illegal immigrant drug dealers.
Never mind, the decision is correct. If the law wants to track drug dealers, they should get a warrant.
21 posted on
01/23/2012 10:28:24 AM PST by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: Recovering_Democrat
Thank God! I was really worried about this one. It could have been 5-4 against, and one or two of “our guys” could have gone against. This gives me some hope that sanity may be restored some day.
To: Recovering_Democrat
This is the second unanimous vote in as many weeks. I’m blown away.
24 posted on
01/23/2012 10:48:41 AM PST by
douginthearmy
(Obamagebra: 1 job + 1 hope + 1 change = 0 jobs + 0 hope)
To: Pan_Yan
25 posted on
01/23/2012 10:48:58 AM PST by
Pan_Yans Wife
("Real solidarity means coming together for the common good."-Sarah Palin)
To: Recovering_Democrat; P-Marlowe
I have mixed feelings on this one since a warrant had previously been issued for an area and an amount of time.
I don’t think police should randomly be permitted to track people. At the same time, they must have had enough evidence to convince a judge to give them the initial warrant.
As near as I can tell, the judge erred on the side of geography and duration, and I find it odd that the druggie was comfortable after that time and in a different location.
Moreover, we are now 100% CERTAIN that the guy was traffiking drugs. There is no doubt. He is guilty as sin of the charge.
Therefore, the police were reasonable in their suspicions.
29 posted on
01/23/2012 11:00:28 AM PST by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
To: Recovering_Democrat
On the other hand, tracking the GPS in his cell phone is a different matter. He is broadcasting his location to the world and the world can track him
30 posted on
01/23/2012 11:04:08 AM PST by
bert
(K.E. N.P. +12 ..... Crucifixion is coming)
To: Recovering_Democrat
wait till obamacare, that is where they ware waiting to rule.
Then there is now forcing religious institutions to do abortions, contraceptives etc
39 posted on
01/23/2012 11:37:38 AM PST by
manc
(Marriage is between one man and one woman.Trolls get a life, I HATE OUR BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA.)
To: Recovering_Democrat
What a muddle this ruling seems to be - 4 weeks of 24x7 GPS tracking is not okay, but some lesser amount of GPS tracking might be okay? What huh?
40 posted on
01/23/2012 11:40:49 AM PST by
mvpel
(Michael Pelletier)
To: Recovering_Democrat
Well well! If this court rules like this over a simple GPS signal, New York Citys' plan to
electronically frisk everyone won't stand a chance.
47 posted on
01/23/2012 11:57:12 AM PST by
Lazamataz
(Norm Lenhart knows nothing about reloading.)
To: Recovering_Democrat
Well well! If this court rules like this over a simple GPS signal, New York Citys' plan to
electronically frisk everyone won't stand a chance.
48 posted on
01/23/2012 11:57:18 AM PST by
Lazamataz
(Norm Lenhart knows nothing about reloading.)
To: Jim Robinson
Pinging ya to this one. This is nice to see.
Ya know, I bet you Scalia or Thomas is a closet Freeper.
Who knows, you might have banned one of them by accident. LOL
51 posted on
01/23/2012 12:02:14 PM PST by
Lazamataz
(Norm Lenhart knows nothing about reloading.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson