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.

(Huffington Post)   News: SCOTUS rules in favor of the little guy. Fark: In a drug case. UltraFark: With Scalia writing the majority opinion. WTFark: And Thomas joining him   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 358
    More: Interesting, U.S. Supreme Court, Florida Supreme Court, UltraFark, detection dog, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, majority opinion, Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Stephen Breyer  
•       •       •

16303 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2013 at 1:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



358 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-26 11:30:41 AM
I'm shocked and gratified. This is good. Companies can't conspire to keep generics off the market.
 
2013-03-26 11:31:47 AM

a_room_with_a_moose: I'm shocked and gratified. This is good. Companies can't conspire to keep generics off the market.


... that's not the case the article's talking about. Or the kind of drugs.
 
2013-03-26 11:34:02 AM

Rincewind53: a_room_with_a_moose: I'm shocked and gratified. This is good. Companies can't conspire to keep generics off the market.

... that's not the case the article's talking about. Or the kind of drugs.


It's okay.  He's rolling.
 
2013-03-26 11:35:24 AM
My bad. I assumed it was the case on the docket.

/Drtfa
 
2013-03-26 11:47:59 AM
It's not trespassing when a mail carrier comes on a porch for a brief period, Alito said. And that includes "police officers who wish to gather evidence against an occupant," Alito said

Uh, what??? I'm not a lawyer, but that is a really stupid argument.
 
2013-03-26 11:54:23 AM

vernonFL: It's not trespassing when a mail carrier comes on a porch for a brief period, Alito said. And that includes "police officers who wish to gather evidence against an occupant," Alito said

Uh, what??? I'm not a lawyer, but that is a really stupid argument.


Which is why you are either too smart or too honest to make it as a conservative judge.
 
2013-03-26 12:22:47 PM
I wonder if this will apply to automobiles as well?
 
2013-03-26 12:31:39 PM
Alito's an a**. This is good news, though!
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-03-26 12:32:26 PM
Since when has Thomas ever voted against the wishes of his puppetmaster, Subby?
 
2013-03-26 01:02:33 PM
Thomas agreeing with Scalia is a WTF? WTF? Is it Opposite Day already?
 
2013-03-26 01:03:38 PM

vernonFL: It's not trespassing when a mail carrier comes on a porch for a brief period, Alito said. And that includes "police officers who wish to gather evidence against an occupant," Alito said

Uh, what??? I'm not a lawyer, but that is a really stupid argument.


You mean you don't have a USPSPDFDDOT officer in your town?
 
2013-03-26 01:03:41 PM
The defense hinged on a brilliant gambit:  what if dogs could be used to sniff out tumors before an Obamacare Death Panel?

Scalia checked with the Founding Fathers and found out that they hate Obozocare.
 
2013-03-26 01:04:47 PM
Well it's finally happened.

I've woken up in the bizarro universe....
 
2013-03-26 01:05:26 PM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Thomas agreeing with Scalia is a WTF? WTF? Is it Opposite Day already?


I KNOW WTF THAT NEVER HAPPENS EVER THOSE TWO HATE EACH OTHER.
 
2013-03-26 01:06:56 PM
But Scalia is a big private property conservative and feels government can't take or interfere with your private property like your money, land, wife or slaves.
 
2013-03-26 01:07:32 PM

Rapmaster2000: The defense hinged on a brilliant gambit:  what if dogs could be used to sniff out tumors before an Obamacare Death Panel?

Scalia checked with the Founding Fathers and found out that they hate Obozocare.


If dogs could sniff out tumors with the same sensitivity as they sniff out drugs, you'd have a dog in every doctors office in the nation.
 
2013-03-26 01:07:49 PM

TwoHead: vernonFL: It's not trespassing when a mail carrier comes on a porch for a brief period, Alito said. And that includes "police officers who wish to gather evidence against an occupant," Alito said

Uh, what??? I'm not a lawyer, but that is a really stupid argument.

Which is why you are either too smart or too honest to make it as a conservative judge.


So is Breyer stupid, dishonest, or both?
 
2013-03-26 01:07:51 PM
Division by zero?
 
2013-03-26 01:08:10 PM

jbc: Since when has Thomas ever voted against the wishes of his puppetmaster, Subby?


Last term they disagreed 7% of the time.  The justices who agree the most, contrary to liberal opinion, are Roberts and Kennedy.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/SCOTUSblog_S t at_Pack_OT11_Updated.pdf">http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/up loads/2013/03/SCOTUSblog_St at_Pack_OT11_Updated.pdf
 
2013-03-26 01:09:11 PM

TinyFist: Alito's an a**. This is good news, though!


Pretty much. I'm very surprised this case was ruled as it was, even though it was a clear violation of the fourth amendment.

/Too bad he won't get his plants back
//It's just weed, get over it already
 
2013-03-26 01:09:23 PM
I thought they were expected to go the other way on this one?
 
2013-03-26 01:09:27 PM
Good on the Court, I say.
 
2013-03-26 01:10:13 PM

Gecko Gingrich: I wonder if this will apply to automobiles as well?


If they want to go IN to the car, probably - but if you're on the side of a public road (having been pulled over) and the dog is walking around your car... probably not.

Of course we've all read the research on how K9 units can pretty much "read" their handler to know when to indicate a positive (in certain circumstances.)
 
2013-03-26 01:10:15 PM

jbc: Since when has Thomas ever voted against the wishes of his puppetmaster, Subby?


Yeah, no shiat. Thomas has a stamp that says "What Scalia said." Saves him time.
 
2013-03-26 01:10:22 PM
Though he should still be charged with electricity theft. WTF, if you weren't selling enough to cover that (especially with that many plants), then you're doin' it wrong.
 
2013-03-26 01:10:54 PM
Alito also said that the court's ruling stretches expectations of privacy too far.

"A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house may be detected from locations that are open to the public, and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectable by a dog, cannot be smelled by a human."


Go fark yourself, Alito.

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President. These guys hold this seat for life.
 
2013-03-26 01:11:20 PM
More stupid from Alito
"According to the court, however, the police officer in this case, Detective Bartelt, committed a trespass because he was accompanied during his otherwise lawful visit to the front door of the respondent's house by his dog, Franky. Where is the authority evidencing such a rule?"

Caught sayof dog instain to porch?

3.bp.blogspot.com

/Thank GAWD he's on the court for life, amirite?
 
2013-03-26 01:11:29 PM

Corvus: But Scalia is a big private property conservative and feels government can't take or interfere with your private property like your money, land, wife or slaves.

midnight toker
 
2013-03-26 01:11:42 PM
It's a bad day for Authoritarians who want to shiat on the Constitution.

Let's hope this trend continues.
 
2013-03-26 01:11:49 PM
police cannot bring drug-sniffing police dogs onto a suspect's property to look for evidence without first getting a warrant for a search

Dog or no dog, what the fark are the police doing on my property without a warrant in the first place?
 
2013-03-26 01:11:51 PM
You know, no one would *ever dare* mention Ultrafark without fear of reprisal, and WTFark was just the stuff of legends. This place is falling apart, but I guess I'll get used it.
 
2013-03-26 01:12:27 PM
Yay!
 
2013-03-26 01:12:30 PM
FTA: "The police cannot, without a warrant based on probable cause, hang around on the lawn or in the side garden, trawling for evidence and perhaps peering into the windows of the home,"

Yet if some bypasser or nosy neighbor sees you walking around naked through the slits of your closed window blinds, the police can cite you for that?  WTF.
 
2013-03-26 01:12:41 PM

jjorsett: TwoHead: vernonFL: It's not trespassing when a mail carrier comes on a porch for a brief period, Alito said. And that includes "police officers who wish to gather evidence against an occupant," Alito said

Uh, what??? I'm not a lawyer, but that is a really stupid argument.

Which is why you are either too smart or too honest to make it as a conservative judge.

So is Breyer stupid, dishonest, or both?


I think of Breyer as the ultimate law nerd. He's the kind of guy who would salivate at the prospect of reading 200 pages of property law regulations.
 
2013-03-26 01:13:04 PM

Corvus: But Scalia is a big private property conservative and feels government can't take or interfere with your private property like your money, land, wife or slaves.


How is that inconsistent with the opinion?

Seems to me, a big private property conservative who feels government can't interfere with your private property, like your land, wouldn't be too keen on giving the government the power to remotely sense what is going on inside your home.

You know, like how he wrote the opinion in Kyllo that ruled that using an infrared scanner on a house without a warrant was unconstitutional.
 
2013-03-26 01:13:41 PM

jbc: Since when has Thomas ever voted against the wishes of his puppetmaster, Subby?


Prank Call of Cthulhu: Thomas agreeing with Scalia is a WTF? WTF? Is it Opposite Day already?


It's rare but not unheard of for Scalia to rule against law enforcement. Thomas, on the other hand, was once on the losing side of a 8-1 decision in which he approved of strip-searching minors to find Advil.
 
2013-03-26 01:14:04 PM

Antimatter: Rapmaster2000: The defense hinged on a brilliant gambit:  what if dogs could be used to sniff out tumors before an Obamacare Death Panel?

Scalia checked with the Founding Fathers and found out that they hate Obozocare.

If dogs could sniff out tumors with the same sensitivity as they sniff out drugs, you'd have a dog in every doctors office in the nation.


If dogs could sniff out tumors with the same sensitivity as they sniff out drugs, doctors would be convicted of quackery.
 
2013-03-26 01:14:23 PM

PsyLord: FTA: "The police cannot, without a warrant based on probable cause, hang around on the lawn or in the side garden, trawling for evidence and perhaps peering into the windows of the home,"

Yet if some bypasser or nosy neighbor sees you through the slits of your closed window blinds walking around naked, the police can cite you for that?  WTF.


FTFGN
(fixed that for grammar na...)
 
2013-03-26 01:14:55 PM
This is definitely good news.
 
2013-03-26 01:15:24 PM
I completely agree with the ruling and I am happy they came to rule as they did. Any search of a person, vehicle or private home should require the consent of the person or warrant granted only with strong evidence supporting the need for such a search. I know this hinders law enforcement, but I am will to give up a little safety in order to keep my freedom.
 
2013-03-26 01:16:37 PM

Vector R: TinyFist: Alito's an a**. This is good news, though!

Pretty much. I'm very surprised this case was ruled as it was, even though it was a clear violation of the fourth amendment.

/Too bad he won't get his plants back
//It's just weed, get over it already


It's not that bright a line violation of the 4th: the dissent had both liberal and conservative members on it, as did the majority. What seemed to tip the scales was the use of the dog, which is essentially the equivalent of hauling a detection device onto the premises, IMHO. Had the cops used their own noses and smelled the pot, the 5-4 split might have gone the other way.
 
2013-03-26 01:16:39 PM

dittybopper: Corvus: But Scalia is a big private property conservative and feels government can't take or interfere with your private property like your money, land, wife or slaves.

How is that inconsistent with the opinion?

Seems to me, a big private property conservative who feels government can't interfere with your private property, like your land, wouldn't be too keen on giving the government the power to remotely sense what is going on inside your home.

You know, like how he wrote the opinion in Kyllo that ruled that using an infrared scanner on a house without a warrant was unconstitutional.


Where did I say it way inconsistent?
 
2013-03-26 01:17:02 PM

macadamnut: police cannot bring drug-sniffing police dogs onto a suspect's property to look for evidence without first getting a warrant for a search

Dog or no dog, what the fark are the police doing on my property without a warrant in the first place?



Markin' their territory - or so they thought.
 
2013-03-26 01:17:41 PM
Newsflash, folks ... both Scalia and Thomas are generally very critical of the government attempting to expand it's powers, especially when it comes to property rights and infringing on individual freedoms.  The alignment of the Justices is not surprising at all.  All the same hacks expressing shock at "conservative" justices supporting the rights of the individual ought to be in total outrage at the "liberal" administration's position that they can drone strike an American citizen without warrant, search or trial.
 
2013-03-26 01:17:51 PM

Profedius: I completely agree with the ruling and I am happy they came to rule as they did. Any search of a person, vehicle or private home should require the consent of the person or warrant granted only with strong evidence supporting the need for such a search. I know this hinders law enforcement, but I am will to give up a little safety in order to keep my freedom.


So no probably cause? If you here someone scream "Help me I am being kidnapped" in the back of trunk he has to get a court warrant first? I think that's a bit extreme.
 
2013-03-26 01:18:30 PM
He was joined in his opinion by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

I think my brain just melted.

1) Scalia was right about something.
2) This wasn't a decision ruled down party lines.
 
2013-03-26 01:18:43 PM

Corvus: dittybopper: Corvus: But Scalia is a big private property conservative and feels government can't take or interfere with your private property like your money, land, wife or slaves.

How is that inconsistent with the opinion?

Seems to me, a big private property conservative who feels government can't interfere with your private property, like your land, wouldn't be too keen on giving the government the power to remotely sense what is going on inside your home.

You know, like how he wrote the opinion in Kyllo that ruled that using an infrared scanner on a house without a warrant was unconstitutional.

Where did I say it way inconsistent?


Maybe people are confused by you starting your post with "but" as if your sentence was contradicting something Subby said or indicating it was inconsistent with Scalia's normal behavior.
 
2013-03-26 01:18:47 PM

Lando Lincoln: jbc: Since when has Thomas ever voted against the wishes of his puppetmaster, Subby?

Yeah, no shiat. Thomas has a stamp that says "What Scalia said." Saves him time.


Says someone who knows nothing about the Supreme Court or the philosophies of the justices.  Scalia and Thomas actually disagree quite often on issues of executive authority and federal vs. state powers.  While both are narrow in their strict approach to interpreting the text of constitution Thomas is clearly more  libertarian.  See Gonzales v. Raich on whether Congress can ban marijuana.

Of course, it's much easier to just say the dumb black justice always votes with his white puppetmaster.
 
2013-03-26 01:18:47 PM

freeforever: jbc: Since when has Thomas ever voted against the wishes of his puppetmaster, Subby?

Last term they disagreed 7% of the time.  The justices who agree the most, contrary to liberal opinion, are Roberts and Kennedy.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/SCOTUSblog_S t at_Pack_OT11_Updated.pdf">http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/up loads/2013/03/SCOTUSblog_St at_Pack_OT11_Updated.pdf


Read the PDF again.

Scalia and Thomas Agree in Full, Part, or Judgment Only 93%
Roberts & Kennedy Agree in Full, Part, or Judgment Only 84%

2nd place was Alito and Roberts (91% agreement)
 
2013-03-26 01:19:21 PM
This split was a classic formalist vs pragmatist split

Scalia and Thomas don't care what the result is, as long as the logic feels sound to them.   The minority in this case is more pragmatic, they care what the result is first.   If they like the result, they like the logic.

In this case the pragmatists don't like the majority opinion because it lets a bad guy out of jail and potentially makes the drug war more difficult.
 
Displayed 50 of 358 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report