SCOTUS Repeals Fourth Amendment

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

It depends on the neighborhood..... or in your case, the location of the restroom.

Now that is "eye watering hilarious".

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

This is why SCOTUS appointments don't matter. The Court ruled that the discovery of evidence obtained through an illegal search is admissible in court. Who voted in favor of this? Why the libs, of course! Wait a minute. Voting in favor, and AGAINST the 4th Amendment were Justices Thomas (who wrote the majority opinion), Roberts, Alito, Kennedy and Breyer, the lone liberal supporting tyranny. The defense of Liberty was contained in the dissent of Justice Sotomayor. Justice Kagan offered a slightly softer defense of freedom.
Don't tell me we need a "conservative" to make appointments. We have been betrayed by the right. God Bless, and Three Cheers for Justices Sotomayor and Kagan!


http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/20/so...tus-for-excusi

You get an E for effort.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Next YOU'LL be adding " snick " or " snort " to your posts, like YOUR mentor and newest butt buddy assup piggy mamboolah does. And YOU'LL think that it makes YOU sophisticated to expand YOUR limited vocabulary that way !!!!

More spam...........

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"gay rey

aka Gay rey

FIFY dunderhead.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Now that is "eye watering hilarious".

In your case it should be leg wetting.

[Revenant]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

It is harder to profile a white person.

Cut out the race nonsense. It's a red herring.

In this case, the defendant, Strieff, was white.

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by Revenant

Cut out the race nonsense. It's a red herring.

In this case, the defendant, Strieff, was white.

It would be too hard in Ivan's case. Some queers have hickies but Ivan has a knot on the back of his head.

[gary5912]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Next YOU'LL be adding " snick " or " snort " to your posts, like YOUR mentor and newest butt buddy assup piggy mamboolah does. And YOU'LL think that it makes YOU sophisticated to expand YOUR limited vocabulary that way !!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH:

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

It would be too hard in Ivan's case. Some queers have hickies but Ivan has a knot on the back of his head.

You are mumbling take the dick out of your mouth.

[gary5912]

[QUOTE=TheDaliLama;1058308030]It would be too hard in Ivan's case. Some queers have hickies but Ivan has a knot on the back of his head.[/QUOT

AND A DICK UP HIS ASS

[i'va biggen]

[QUOTE=gary5912;1058308154]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

It would be too hard in Ivan's case. Some queers have hickies but Ivan has a knot on the back of his head.[/QUOT

AND A DICK UP HIS ASS

Originally Posted by gary5912

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH:

Fucking laughing idiot.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Blast from the past...

THE CORNER THE ONE AND ONLY. Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law?

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY December 23, 2009 7:59 AM

You just can’t make up how brazen this crowd is. One week ago, President Obama quietly signed an executive order that makes an international police force immune from the restraints of American law. Interpol is the shorthand for the International Criminal Police Organization. It was established in 1923 and operates in about 188 countries. By executive order 12425, issued in 1983, President Reagan recognized Interpol as an international organization and gave it some of the privileges and immunities customarily extended to foreign diplomats. Interpol, however, is also an active law-enforcement agency, so critical privileges and immunities (set forth in Section 2(c) of the International Organizations Immunities Act) were withheld. Specifically, Interpol’s property and assets remained subject to search and seizure, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions like the Freedom of Information Act. Being constrained by the Fourth Amendment, FOIA, and other limitations of the Constitution and federal law that protect the liberty and privacy of Americans is what prevents law-enforcement and its controlling government authority from becoming tyrannical. On Wednesday, however, for no apparent reason, President Obama issued an executive order removing the Reagan limitations. That is, Interpol’s property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States. Interpol works closely with international tribunals (such as the International Criminal Court — which the United States has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions, though top Obama officials want us in it). It also works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities (such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported war crimes — i.e., for actions taken in America’s defense). Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize? Steve Schippert has more at ThreatsWatch, here.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...rew-c-mccarthy

[The_Waco_Kid]

the professor is over-reacting. as usual

I was at a speaking engagement for MIT ... and I said ... the Professor has all sorts of degrees, including one from this very institution [MIT]! And that's why I can make a radio out of a coconut, and not fix a hole in a boat!
— Russell Johnson

just like the professor. no common sense.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

This is why SCOTUS appointments don't matter. The Court ruled that.... Three Cheers for Justices Sotomayor and Kagan!

Am I the only one shaking his head at the OP's illogic?

Irrespective of the case you are looking at or the constitutional issues at stake, it is laughably contradictory to say "SCOTUS appointments don't matter" - and then, in the next breath, to applaud those Justices who voted the way you want them to!

But when the Original Poster is COG, who the hell expects logical thinking?

[CuteOldGuy]

Jeez, you guys don't really like freedom much, do you? Seriously? As long as you have nothing to hide, you'll be ok? Do you really want to give the government the authority to pick someone up, and detain them until they find something, even if there was no probable cause for the stop? Thomas clearly said the stop was unconstitutional. Do you need more than that? If this stands, we can no longer call ourselves a "free" country. Read Sotomayor's dissent. That's where you will find the truth.

And then, one lone liberal stood up for freedom in a committee vote to allow the government to search anyone's email and browsing history without a warrant. Thank you, Senator Ron Wyden for standing up against the phony patriots who want to expand the police state.


I'll take an honest liberal over a phony, lying conservative any day of the week. SCOTUS got it wrong, and it was the ones we thought would get it right who betrayed us.


And I'm retired. I don't have clients anymore. I won more cases than I lost, but it's getting harder. The government barely has to prove crap anymore. The idea that in the justice system a person is presumed innocent is a farce anymore. When you're charged, you're guilty. It's a scary time. I fear for the type of country my grandkids will grow up in. They may never know freedom.