Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Blogger)   Scholar whose work was cited by Scalia in last week's no-knock case says Scalia doesn't know what the fark he's talking about   (theagitator.com) divider line 110
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

13120 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jun 2006 at 3:40 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



110 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-06-21 12:17:01 PM  
Ummmm ... looks like he was quoted in context, and the opinion hardly rests on his research. What a whiner.
 
2006-06-21 01:52:24 PM  
filth: looks like he was quoted in context

No, it most definitely doesn't.
 
DAR [TotalFark]
2006-06-21 02:00:26 PM  
and says he would agree that the direction of drug policing of late (which of course was what the Hudson case is all about) does raise significant civil liberties concerns

No kidding!
 
2006-06-21 03:42:31 PM  
Rarely are the question asked, can our Supreme Court Justices reading?
 
2006-06-21 03:42:37 PM  
The SCOTUS has been packed to basically hand down judgements that law enforcement and elected officials are no longer required to obey the law.

My response to the SC:

Get farked.
 
2006-06-21 03:43:45 PM  
[AMUSING] trumps [OBVIOUS] eh?
 
2006-06-21 03:43:53 PM  
Now just wait a doggone minute! Are we to believe that a U.S. Supreme Court Justice could make a mistake? I call shenanigans.
 
2006-06-21 03:44:16 PM  
Again with the stupid bloggers? Maybe we need a "Blog" tag so we know which links not to click.
You have to be a real narricstic asshole to make a blog and think that other people actually care about it. "hey I have an opinion and Im on the internet, look at me".
Whats next are we gonna have links to message boards next?
 
2006-06-21 03:44:42 PM  
I suspect Scalia is a big bag of wind.
 
2006-06-21 03:45:58 PM  
The case was this:

Cops knocked, 3 seconds later entered defendants house.

What should have happened by prior thinking, knock, wait 20 seconds and then barge in.

I'm not sure that those 17 seconds are sending me running for my copy of Common Sense. Case is really sort of a non-issue, these are warrented searches that are excecuted with or without the resident's consent anyways.
 
2006-06-21 03:46:14 PM  
I suspect Scalia is an refurbished animatronic from Disney World...

Controlled by...
 
2006-06-21 03:46:39 PM  
Well, at least Scalia didn't make chicken noises into the mic.
 
2006-06-21 03:46:54 PM  
The Suprmeme Court has routinely sided with Police in their decisions. I don't know why anyone would be shocked by this.

Police lobbies are very powerful and have great influence on judicial nominees. Plus, if you try to suggest we should protect civil liberties, they just throw out that you are soft on crime.

Being seen as soft is a death sentence for an American politician.
 
2006-06-21 03:47:00 PM  
This is way too complicated for me

/just had a brew at lunch, but no lunch
 
2006-06-21 03:47:24 PM  
scalia is a fascist.
 
2006-06-21 03:48:00 PM  
"Again with the stupid bloggers? Maybe we need a "Blog" tag so we know which links not to click.
You have to be a real narricstic asshole to make a blog and think that other people actually care about it. "hey I have an opinion and Im on the internet, look at me".
Whats next are we gonna have links to message boards next?"

Is this a talking point?
 
2006-06-21 03:48:02 PM  
Scalia knows exactly what he's doing.

Don't confuse evil with stupid, kids.
 
2006-06-21 03:48:11 PM  
You can't really tell if it was quoted in context. Obviously, judicial oversight would contribute to reforms, which in turn would persist even after the oversight ended.

Scalia seems to be arguing that future oversight is unnecessary because the reforms have been institutionalized

whereas

the researcher thinks the oversight should continue because the reforms were successful

which are

both valid interpretations of his research

so there's

no story here, really.
 
2006-06-21 03:48:20 PM  
pontechango: No, it most definitely doesn't.

Yeah, he was. His argument is that his overall research supports a different outcome in the case (which is an ass stupid argument, but that's a different biatch). The specific finding cited means the same thing in the opinion as in the research; so it's not out of context at all. He'd like for us to read the rest of his research and to know that he doesn't agree with the opinion, but that doesn't change his specific finding about internal police procedures, and it doesn't misuse his work or reputation (no one's saying he's an opponent of the exclusionary rule). He's just whining.
 
2006-06-21 03:48:37 PM  
Controlled by Satan?
 
2006-06-21 03:48:49 PM  
Rarely are the question asked, can our Supreme Court Justices reading?

Can our fark posters writing?
 
2006-06-21 03:49:50 PM  
JohnnyDanger: I suspect Scalia is a big bag of wind.

And to that, Scalia says, "Va fangul!"
 
2006-06-21 03:50:50 PM  
hokiebuckeye

It was probably an honest typo. Why do you criticizing?
 
2006-06-21 03:51:12 PM  
hokiebuckeye: Can our fark posters writing?

Or ask question?
 
2006-06-21 03:51:37 PM  
Actually he doesn't say Scalia doesn't know what he's talking about -- he's saying Scalia deliberately quoted him out of context in order to justify a point of view which is really not borne out in the original article.
 
2006-06-21 03:52:11 PM  
clevershark>

We have a winner!
 
2006-06-21 03:52:16 PM  
dalbuc: I'm not sure that those 17 seconds are sending me running for my copy of Common Sense.

20 seconds is a reasonable amount of time to walk downstairs and open the door, preventing property damage, mistaken identity (who are these people breaking down my door without warning?!), and confrontation.

3 seconds is barely enough to notice the doorbell before having people with guns running through your splintered front door.
 
2006-06-21 03:52:24 PM  
hokiebuckeye: Can our fark posters writing?

Clearly, you're not familiar with this rather famous Bushism: "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"
 
2006-06-21 03:52:35 PM  
I'm sure the scholar was the one who just used the wrong words, and needed Scalia to striclty construe them for him.
 
2006-06-21 03:53:12 PM  
Kebert Xela: Being seen as soft is a death sentence for an American politician.



SC judges are not supposed to be politicians
 
2006-06-21 03:53:35 PM  
Kebert Xela


Plus, if you try to suggest we should protect civil liberties, they just throw out that you are soft on crime.

Being seen as soft is a death sentence for an American politician.


Shouldn't life time appointments circumvent having to care about what the public or anyone else thinks about you?
 
2006-06-21 03:53:47 PM  
A few years back a man in Denver was killed in one of these "no-knock raids" when the police saw the man pull a gun as they entered.

The farked up part is they police got the wrong address.

The other farked up part is that the "gun" was actually a soda can.
 
2006-06-21 03:53:48 PM  
2006-06-21 03:48:49 PM hokiebuckeye

Rarely are the question asked, can our Supreme Court Justices reading?

Can our fark posters writing


Oh, hokiebuckeye

lookie here

might clear that up for you
 
2006-06-21 03:54:07 PM  
dalbuc: The case was this:

Cops knocked, 3 seconds later entered defendants house.

What should have happened by prior thinking, knock, wait 20 seconds and then barge in.

I'm not sure that those 17 seconds are sending me running for my copy of Common Sense. Case is really sort of a non-issue, these are warrented searches that are excecuted with or without the resident's consent anyways.




Precisely. The whole knock-and-anounce rationale was faulty anyhow because, with a valid warrant, you could have just made the argument that it was inevitable discovery. This decision essentially just makes a rule of law out of the logical conclusion that knock-and-announce was never really a valid reason to exclude evidence because it would have been found under the exercise of the valid warrant regardless of notice to the occupant of the house. SCOTUS is certainly not going to buy an argument that without the knock and announce the evidence would not have been inevitably discovered because the crooks would have destroyed it as that just jsutifies an exigent circumstances argument.
 
2006-06-21 03:54:08 PM  
We could solve this 4th Amendment problem by making our doors out of day-old donuts. No way they'd touch 'em.
 
2006-06-21 03:54:36 PM  
Fecality: Again with the stupid bloggers? Maybe we need a "Blog" tag so we know which links not to click.

I like that idea!
 
2006-06-21 03:54:43 PM  
yeah because scalia is a poo eating fascist monkey.
 
2006-06-21 03:55:21 PM  
some_wild-eyed_8-foot_tall_maniac

I got it. hokiebuckeye didn't.
 
2006-06-21 03:55:43 PM  
Fousse: I suspect Scalia is an refurbished animatronic from Disney World..

Reminds me of that old Robin Williams bit about Ronald Reagan:

"I'd just like to say, that" MZZZZZZZZ "I think the defense budget should" MZZZZZZZZZ....

"What are you, a farking muppet?"

/all I want is, little bit of western Europe,
//and nude, 3-d picture of Brooke Shields...
///hey, her eyebrows remind me of Breshnev, OK?
 
2006-06-21 03:56:21 PM  
Polyhazard: The other farked up part is that the "gun" was actually a soda can.

Come on now, you're being soft on people who were wrongly killed by police officers!
 
2006-06-21 03:56:44 PM  
Kebert Xela: Plus, if you try to suggest we should protect civil liberties, they just throw out that you are soft on crime.

Being seen as soft is a death sentence for an American politician.


If the Democrats had any balls, they'd answer every cry of "You're soft on crime" with "YOU'RE soft on civil rights and individual liberty."
 
2006-06-21 03:57:25 PM  
Donald_McRonald:

"Again with the stupid bloggers? Maybe we need a "Blog" tag so we know which links not to click.
You have to be a real narricstic asshole to make a blog and think that other people actually care about it. "hey I have an opinion and Im on the internet, look at me".
Whats next are we gonna have links to message boards next?"


You obviously do not read Radley on a regular basis. He is very intelligent and an excellent voice for the people who still value personal freedom. Believe it or not, there are still people who think that the government shoudln't be telling you what to eat, drink, smoke, who to marry where to live ad nauseum.

Read some back log before calling Radley a "real narricstic asshole". He works for CATO which gives him credentials. He is widly published which makes him credible. You sir are the "real narricstic asshole."
 
2006-06-21 03:59:25 PM  
benlonghair
He works for CATO which gives him credentials

Seriously? I always pegged CATO for a Scalia fan-club.
 
2006-06-21 03:59:25 PM  
benlonghair

I was quoting someone else (03:44:16 PM Fecality), moran.

/can our farkers reading?
 
2006-06-21 03:59:57 PM  
GuyCaballero: If the Democrats had any balls, they'd answer every cry of "You're soft on crime" with "YOU'RE soft on civil rights and individual liberty."

You haven't been paying attention - the response lately would be "so what?"
 
2006-06-21 04:00:06 PM  
OMG activist judge. Call the President!
 
2006-06-21 04:00:13 PM  
Sorry dude, I'm at work, i have to read and type fast
 
2006-06-21 04:00:45 PM  
hokiebuckeye

Rarley are their as grate a thing as a grammer nazee got pwned!!1!one
 
2006-06-21 04:00:55 PM  
img.fark.com tag should have been used.

The SCOTUS is pretty well stacked these days to just agree with whatever the administration and law enforcement says, no matter how much it tramples on the civil rights of the people of this country.

We're swirling down the toilet and nobody seems to care or realize what's going on.
 
2006-06-21 04:01:10 PM  
scotttothety: I'm sure the scholar was the one who just used the wrong words, and needed Scalia to striclty construe them for him.

Wins the thread.

Oh, and thanks, Theobold Holsopple and Angel of Death.
 
Displayed 50 of 110 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report