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  
•       •       •

16306 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
 
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.
 
2013-03-26 01:19:29 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 walking around naked through the slits of your closed window blinds, the police can cite you for that?  WTF.


That is what he was saying, that the police can't do those things that would get you cited- without a warrant at least.
 
2013-03-26 01:19:30 PM

elvindeath: 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.


Yep. this is what I said. He believes the government should not interfere with the property you own, like your land, wife or slaves.
 
2013-03-26 01:20:16 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President.


Yeah, you really should not be throwing those stones, Mr. glass-house owner.

Scalia: installed by Reagan, worst SC judge I've seen in my lifetime.
Thomas: installed by George HW Bush, complete waste of space. Worked for Monsanto corporation for years, but did not recuse himself on Monsanto-related cases.
 
2013-03-26 01:20:44 PM

Theaetetus: 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.


It was it was contradicting subbies surprise at the ruling. You don't think the headline sounded surprised about the his ruling?
 
2013-03-26 01:20:49 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: 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.


That liberal Democrat George W. Bush?
 
2013-03-26 01:21:05 PM
Hut hut hut hut Their little peanut sized heads are exploding about right now!
 
2013-03-26 01:21:09 PM

freeforever: 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.


Feel free to list all of those dissenting opinions. I'll wait right here.
 
2013-03-26 01:22:06 PM
Drug Dog's Sniff Is An Unconstitutional Search, Rules U.S. Supreme Court
www.andrewbellay.com

but also
api.ning.com

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

danceswithfat.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-26 01:22:13 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?


Are you saying Breyer is a conservative judge?
 
2013-03-26 01:22:23 PM

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


I'm guessing that this would not cover cars since a car does not have surrounding property like a house does. This ruling may not even help in an apartment complex where the hallways that lead to your door are public/communal property, They could bring the dog right to your door and never be on your property. .
 
2013-03-26 01:22:30 PM
I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars:  What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals.  But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons?  Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional?  What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?
 
2013-03-26 01:22:47 PM

Corvus: 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.


You're thinking of "exigent circumstances" rather than "probable cause". Allowing warrantless searches where someone's in imminent danger or where there's imminent destruction of evidence is a different animal. Probable cause is required in all situations, including getting the warrant.

And if there's someone locked in a trunk that you just pulled over, screaming to get out, a 10 minute phone call to an on-duty judge won't really make much difference. It's not like you have to say "gosh, no warrant, I guess we'll let you drive off."
 
2013-03-26 01:22:52 PM
Dammit, subby. I haven't even clicked through to the story yet but your headline made me literally drop my farking coffee.
 
2013-03-26 01:23:37 PM

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


Probably not, for 3 reasons:

1) Privacy of the home is considered more "sacred", for lack of a better term, than privacy of a car. The nature of the place to be searched is taken into account when determining whether searches are justified (they can search your backpack under circumstances that it wouldn't be ok to search your butthole, for example.)
2) Cars are mobile. The potential for someone to drive away taking evidence with them gets used a lot to justify warrantless searches of cars.
3) The side of a road is a public place - your porch isn't. They'd likely decide that drug dog sniffing around the outside of your car is just fine, and if the dog detects something it's probable cause for a search of the vehicle.
 
2013-03-26 01:23:42 PM

Lando Lincoln: AverageAmericanGuy: And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President.

Yeah, you really should not be throwing those stones, Mr. glass-house owner.

Scalia: installed by Reagan, worst SC judge I've seen in my lifetime.
Thomas: installed by George HW Bush, complete waste of space. Worked for Monsanto corporation for years, but did not recuse himself on Monsanto-related cases.


C'mon just call him an Uncle Tom already, you know you want too.
 
2013-03-26 01:23:52 PM

Corvus: Theaetetus: 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.

It was it was contradicting subbies surprise at the ruling. You don't think the headline sounded surprised about the his ruling?


Oh, I think this headline sucks and Subby should be mauled by police dogs.
 
2013-03-26 01:24:12 PM
Awesome!
 
2013-03-26 01:24:50 PM

Vector R: 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.


Using large amounts of electricity in a residential home can be probable cause for a search. It isn't that he couldn't pay for it, it is just another thing to try to hide to not raise suspicions.

I am very surprised by the ruling. The curtilage issue has been used to allow many things in the past. Cameras on private property installed by police for example

This is why the only way to be sure you are OK is to have a fence around your property that prevents people from entering, period.
 
2013-03-26 01:25:36 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: And libs, [Alito] is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President.


Why do conservatives lie about things that are so easily disproved?

media1.s-nbcnews.com
January 9, 2006 - President Bush greets Supreme Court nominee
Judge Samuel Alito in the Oval Office
 
2013-03-26 01:25:37 PM

Onkel Buck: C'mon just call him an Uncle Tom already, you know you want too.


His race has nothing to do with anything.

Now why don't you put up some information about how he's an actual good judge.
 
2013-03-26 01:26:18 PM
don't they also look into houses with infra-red ...?    seems similar
 
2013-03-26 01:27:04 PM
Cops are going to be pretty bored when pot gets decriminalized everywhere.
 
2013-03-26 01:27:32 PM

Phinn: I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars:  What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals.  But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons?  Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional?  What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?


There was a case here in NC where the cops tried to use a drug sniffing dog as a corpse sniffing dog. The dog sat down because it didnt know what was being asked of it. That was enough for the cops to railroad the guy. He spent 17 years in prison before he was finally released after a new trial found him innocent. Misusing the dog was only one thing in the long list of piss poor police work that was done on that case
 
2013-03-26 01:27:39 PM

freeforever: Last term [Scalia and Thomas] disagreed 7% of the time.


freeforever: Scalia and Thomas actually disagree quite often


Conservative math. 7% is "quite often"
 
2013-03-26 01:27:50 PM

Lando Lincoln: AverageAmericanGuy: And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President.

Yeah, you really should not be throwing those stones, Mr. glass-house owner.

Scalia: installed by Reagan, worst SC judge I've seen in my lifetime.
Thomas: installed by George HW Bush, complete waste of space. Worked for Monsanto corporation for years, but did not recuse himself on Monsanto-related cases.


I'm as conservative as they get on Fark, but don't get me started on Monsanto.
 
2013-03-26 01:28:08 PM

Phinn: I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars:  What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals.  But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons?  Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional?  What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?


If there is some reason the cops are searching the neighborhood for high explosives because someone is planning on murdering innocent people by the thousands and they know about it I would assume a warrant would be fairly easy to attain. Also, I don't know how much use a dog would be in this situation. I can keep a can of gasoline for my lawnmower and some fertilizer for my garden in my shed. You can blow a lot of shiat up with that, but it would be totally normal to have those 2 "bomb making chemicals" within arms reach of one another in the shed. This is a good ruling that reaffirms cops need warrants for searches without hindering them in any real way.
 
2013-03-26 01:28:18 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: 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.


Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.
 
2013-03-26 01:28:39 PM
Well, color me jaded, but this hardly looks like a "ruling for the little guy." My guess is that they managed to bust some CIA grow op, and are busy doing damage control in order to prevent it from turning into Iran-Contra 2.0.
 
2013-03-26 01:28:56 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Cops are going to be pretty bored when pot gets decriminalized everywhere.


They'll find something else to entertain themselves with.
 
2013-03-26 01:28:59 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President. These guys hold this seat for life.



You're trolling, right? He was first appointed to the third circuit by GHW Bush, and to the SCOTUS by GW Bush. Which means you're either a good troll, or a typical, ignorant conservative.
 
2013-03-26 01:29:08 PM

Lando Lincoln: Onkel Buck: C'mon just call him an Uncle Tom already, you know you want too.

His race has nothing to do with anything.

Now why don't you put up some information about how he's an actual good judge.


He pisses you off, thats enough for me
 
2013-03-26 01:29:12 PM
Search and seizure cases are about the only time I'm ever happy Scalia is on the Supreme Court.
 
2013-03-26 01:29:38 PM
Sooooooooo.......this is gonna make the following decisions that strike down voting rights and reaffirms DOMA to be OK then, right Citizens?
 
2013-03-26 01:29:50 PM

Mad_Radhu: AverageAmericanGuy: 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.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.


I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Stop putting words in my mouth.
 
2013-03-26 01:30:52 PM
Liberal or Conservative, this should be what you want. Less liberties for the police to go messing with people over stupid things.
 
2013-03-26 01:31:32 PM

Onkel Buck: Lando Lincoln: Onkel Buck: C'mon just call him an Uncle Tom already, you know you want too.

His race has nothing to do with anything.

Now why don't you put up some information about how he's an actual good judge.

He pisses you off, thats enough for me


Yeah, that's pretty much the only reason why Republicans continue to get votes. "Cuz they piss off the libs!"

You are a credit to your party.
 
2013-03-26 01:31:38 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


No they aren't. This is a fascinating link, btw.

I never realized how aligned Roberts and Alito were, or Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg.

For that matter, the wildcard is almost always Kennedy.

There are clearly five clusters. Roberts-Alito, Scalia-Thomas, Sotomayor-Kagan-Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy. Kennedy is really the only moderate. Breyer isn't much different from SKG.
 
2013-03-26 01:31:50 PM

Phinn: I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars:  What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals.  But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons?  Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional?  What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?


It as a real crime, and the guy they busted is a real criminal. The question here is one of procedure, and it's more important than the crime in question. It would still be the case if it was explosives, because the procedure is framed by our rights, and changing the procedure is what erodes rights.
 
2013-03-26 01:31:52 PM

Phinn: I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars:  What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?



Get a warrant. You have to have probable cause before you search someone's property for any reason.
 
2013-03-26 01:33:54 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.


AverageAmericanGuy: Mad_Radhu: AverageAmericanGuy: 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.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.

I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Stop putting words in my mouth.


You put them there, Brainiac. Thank you for confirming my opinion of conservatives as both stupid and dishonest and lacking personal responsibility.
 
2013-03-26 01:34:08 PM

Phinn: I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars:  What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals.  But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons?  Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional?  What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?


Doesn't make a difference to me. Drug dog, Bomb Dog etc etc. We can play What If all day long. This is the balancing act we have as a "free and open society." People are innocent until proven guilty, they have an expectation of privacy. Walking dogs, robots, whatever up to peoples doors to make sure they aren't breaking the law isn't the type of country we should be striving to be.
 
2013-03-26 01:34:09 PM

Dog Welder: 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.


It was a division of the blocs.

ST and SKG voted for. AR, B, and K voted against. Scalia and Thomas are in a shocking amount of majority decisions.
 
2013-03-26 01:34:43 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Mad_Radhu: AverageAmericanGuy: 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.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.

I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Stop putting words in my mouth.


Then what the hell does...

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President.

...mean?  Am I taking you out of context by quoting you verbatim?
 
2013-03-26 01:34:45 PM

jaytkay: AverageAmericanGuy: And libs, [Alito] is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President.

Why do conservatives lie about things that are so easily disproved?

[media1.s-nbcnews.com image 474x315]
January 9, 2006 - President Bush greets Supreme Court nominee
Judge Samuel Alito in the Oval Office


media1.s-nbcnews.com 
... says the man with the clearly photoshooped picture. I mean, look at that floor, it's like one of those wacky funhouses.
 
2013-03-26 01:34:53 PM

Onkel Buck: Lando Lincoln: Onkel Buck: C'mon just call him an Uncle Tom already, you know you want too.

His race has nothing to do with anything.

Now why don't you put up some information about how he's an actual good judge.

He pisses you off, thats enough for me


I've met a few people with your attitude. Five year old people.
 
2013-03-26 01:35:14 PM

Lando Lincoln: Onkel Buck: Lando Lincoln: Onkel Buck: C'mon just call him an Uncle Tom already, you know you want too.

His race has nothing to do with anything.

Now why don't you put up some information about how he's an actual good judge.

He pisses you off, thats enough for me

Yeah, that's pretty much the only reason why Republicans continue to get votes. "Cuz they piss off the libs!"

You are a credit to your party.


Not affiliated, but you sure are easy to annoy, its almost like you're nothing but raw emotion.
 
2013-03-26 01:35:55 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Mad_Radhu: AverageAmericanGuy: 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.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.

I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Stop putting words in my mouth.


media.giantbomb.com
 
2013-03-26 01:36:36 PM

shroom: AverageAmericanGuy: Mad_Radhu: AverageAmericanGuy: 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.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.

I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Then what the hell does...

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President.

...mean?  Am I taking you out of context by quoting you verbatim?


He doesn't speak for all conservatives. Just for himself.
 
2013-03-26 01:36:36 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Mad_Radhu: AverageAmericanGuy: 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.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.

I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Stop putting words in my mouth.


..... Your rather special.
 
2013-03-26 01:36:43 PM

jaytkay: Onkel Buck: Lando Lincoln: Onkel Buck: C'mon just call him an Uncle Tom already, you know you want too.

His race has nothing to do with anything.

Now why don't you put up some information about how he's an actual good judge.

He pisses you off, thats enough for me

I've met a few people with your attitude. Five year old people.


Meh, and you got over that too I bet.
 
2013-03-26 01:36:58 PM

shroom: AverageAmericanGuy: Mad_Radhu: AverageAmericanGuy: 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.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.

I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Then what the hell does...

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President.

...mean?  Am I taking you out of context by quoting you verbatim?


Your logic is flawed. What you think I said and what I said are not the same.
 
2013-03-26 01:37:16 PM

Onkel Buck: Lando Lincoln: Onkel Buck: Lando Lincoln: Onkel Buck: C'mon just call him an Uncle Tom already, you know you want too.

His race has nothing to do with anything.

Now why don't you put up some information about how he's an actual good judge.

He pisses you off, thats enough for me

Yeah, that's pretty much the only reason why Republicans continue to get votes. "Cuz they piss off the libs!"

You are a credit to your party.

Not affiliated, but you sure are easy to annoy, its almost like you're nothing but raw emotion.


Oh look, another Fark Indpendent (TM).  How cute.
 
2013-03-26 01:37:36 PM

Lando Lincoln: freeforever: 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.

Feel free to list all of those dissenting opinions. I'll wait right here.


One of the best examples is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.Scalia concurred with the majority opinion that the executive branch cannot hold US citizens suspected of terrorism without due process (not because he has a problem with holding citizens without due process - he just thinks only Congress and not the executive branch gets to suspend habeus corpus. Thomas was the lone dissenter in that opinion, as he believes the President's war-making powers do include that authority or, in the alternative, Congress had implicitly given him that power with the authorisation of use of military force.
 
2013-03-26 01:37:46 PM
I was wondering if the drug was Oxycontin and the 'little guy' Rush Limbaugh, but Rush is Jared from the "Subway" commercials- no matter how much weight they lose, they'll always be fat b@stards.
 
2013-03-26 01:37:50 PM
WTF, four dissenters? When Thomas says the police were over the line, you know they were over the line.
 
2013-03-26 01:38:01 PM
Top using what a Republican said and did against them! Its not fair!
 
2013-03-26 01:38:22 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Stop putting words in my mouth.


I never called you a jackass. I never said you were a jackass. I never suggested you have jackass tendencies. I never said you convinced people that you were a jackass.

Stop putting words in my mouth.
 
2013-03-26 01:38:41 PM

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


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!?!?!
 
2013-03-26 01:38:53 PM

Wendy's Chili: 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.


Advil...yeah, that's the ticket.
i116.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-26 01:39:42 PM

Phinn: I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars:  What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals.  But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons?  Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional?  What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?


Same deal.

I don't care if the dog smells drugs, explosives, or underage pussy funk.  Get a farkin' warrant.
 
2013-03-26 01:39:46 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.


No, it's what all these 4th amendment cases hang on: the privacy of the house and curtilage vs the right of police officers lawfully present in a particular space  to act on anything that is "in plain view" (hearing or smell included).  This ruling is in line with ones where the court has said that , its okay to peer through an open window that has no shade, and even to enhance your vision using a telescope or binoculars, but it's not okay to do the same thing with, say a directional microphone or IR camera.  The idea being that the person inside can know what they are exposing with the open window and take steps to gaurd thier privacy (by drawing a curtain or shade) but you have no reasonable way of knowing what  sounds  a super senitive listening device might be able to pick up, or what emissions your house gives off that are not visible to the naked eye.

The dog's nose seems to fall squarely in that second category, an intrusion you cannot reasonable guard against, so the ruling is in line with prior precedent even if the vote breakdown is very weird
 
2013-03-26 01:40:23 PM

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


They are still allowed to walk up to your door, ring the bell, and ask to talk to you.

Duh
 
2013-03-26 01:40:51 PM

muck4doo: Liberal or Conservative, this should be what you want. Less liberties for the police to go messing with people over stupid things.


Never allow the police into your house.    They will always find something.   Power grabs not social servants.

/not to mention the bud in the closet.
 
2013-03-26 01:41:00 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: 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.


shroom: AverageAmericanGuy: Mad_Radhu: AverageAmericanGuy: 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.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.

I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Then what the hell does...

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President.

...mean?  Am I taking you out of context by quoting you verbatim?


You're twisting his words all around when you repeat them back to him in the same order.
 
2013-03-26 01:41:44 PM

Onkel Buck: Not affiliated, but you sure are easy to annoy, its almost like you're nothing but raw emotion.


Yeah, whatever. Just shut up now. You're not contributing anything.
 
2013-03-26 01:42:12 PM
This is great. We get the cops to stop abusing our rights over drugs, but they still will smack you hard for paid consensual sex. Face it. The cops are fed by the drug laws and benefit from confiscation. Take those away, and they will find somewhere else to line the trough. Oink oink! All hail the pigs we created.
 
2013-03-26 01:44:04 PM

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


very unlikely.  the majority opinion hinged on the idea of the Curtilage of the house and the very high expectation of privacy we have in our house and its immediate surroundings.  All the 4th amendment jurisprudence says there is a far lower expectation of privacy attached to your automobile, even to the extent that in Belton  th ecurt ruled cops are basically entitled to conduct a awarrantless search of your whole car, if they have the same level of propbable cause that they think would entitled them to a warrant if they were to ask for one, which they then don;t have to.
 
2013-03-26 01:44:35 PM

riverwalk barfly: muck4doo: Liberal or Conservative, this should be what you want. Less liberties for the police to go messing with people over stupid things.

Never allow the police into your house.    They will always find something.   Power grabs not social servants.

/not to mention the bud in the closet.


Whether you know it or not, you probably broke a bunch of laws today you never even heard of. Yes, they will always find something.
 
2013-03-26 01:46:09 PM

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

very unlikely.  the majority opinion hinged on the idea of the Curtilage of the house and the very high expectation of privacy we have in our house and its immediate surroundings.  All the 4th amendment jurisprudence says there is a far lower expectation of privacy attached to your automobile, even to the extent that in Belton  th ecurt ruled cops are basically entitled to conduct a awarrantless search of your whole car, if they have the same level of propbable cause that they think would entitled them to a warrant if they were to ask for one, which they then don;t have to.


Cop: Can I search your car?
You: No.
Cop: Sounds suspicious. Probable cause.
 
2013-03-26 01:46:09 PM

Phinn: I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals. But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons? Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional? What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?


Yes. It would be unconstitutional.

This is not 24.
 
2013-03-26 01:47:47 PM

shroom: AverageAmericanGuy: Mad_Radhu: AverageAmericanGuy: 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.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.

I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Then what the hell does...

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President.

...mean?  Am I taking you out of context by quoting you verbatim?


He didn't say that a democrat installed him, just that IF the democrats had the opportunity to pick the justice, they would have. So vote republican.
 
2013-03-26 01:48:07 PM

muck4doo: This is great. We get the cops to stop abusing our rights over drugs, but they still will smack you hard for paid consensual sex. Face it. The cops are fed by the drug laws and benefit from confiscation. Take those away, and they will find somewhere else to line the trough. Oink oink! All hail the pigs we created.


If you have a problem with the laws that the law enforcers and enforcing, then complain about the laws they're enforcing and who put those laws there in the first place.
 
2013-03-26 01:48:51 PM

Marcus Aurelius: shroom: AverageAmericanGuy: Mad_Radhu: AverageAmericanGuy: 
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.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.

I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Then what the hell does...

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President.

...mean?  Am I taking you out of context by quoting you verbatim?

You're twisting his words all around when you repeat them back to him in the same order.


Why am I not surprised libs will treat posts as "living documents" that change meaning as the circumstances fit?
 
2013-03-26 01:49:14 PM

Corvus: 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.




The law does not consider the event you described a search, however if the officer heard a knocking sound coming from the trunk without a voice declaring a crime in progress then an investigation of the trunk would be considered a search. Sighting an extreme event in order to support illegal searches does not account for the great many searches that should not have been allowed even more so when the event does not pertain to the topic at hand.
 
2013-03-26 01:50:03 PM

elvindeath: 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.


Repeat after me:
Judicial.
Legislative.
Executive.

Here's a helpful infographic:

mistercaps.files.wordpress.com

/Protip: 'Constitution' is a document, not a person; these are not all run by the same guy
//Maybe if the GOP hadn't made 'Conservative' synonymous with 'Bigoted Idiot' more people would be in 'total outrage' abut drone strikes
///BTW, you're only half right that they could target 'inside the U.S.' and you should be more worried that your local Police Department wants drones than the Feds possibly using them against domestic terrorism
 
2013-03-26 01:51:42 PM

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


Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!?!?!


I already issued a culpa mea for DRTFA in the first few boobies.

Thanks, though. Some dead horses just can't be flogged enough!
 
2013-03-26 01:53:01 PM
There are a lot of Scalia-haters that are going to be wringing their hands over this ruling.
 
2013-03-26 01:53:43 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Why am I not surprised libs will treat posts as "living documents" that change meaning as the circumstances fit?


Because you're a willfully ignorant piece of troll-sh*t who paints with a broader brush than most?


/Educated guess
 
2013-03-26 01:54:56 PM

Lando Lincoln: muck4doo: This is great. We get the cops to stop abusing our rights over drugs, but they still will smack you hard for paid consensual sex. Face it. The cops are fed by the drug laws and benefit from confiscation. Take those away, and they will find somewhere else to line the trough. Oink oink! All hail the pigs we created.

If you have a problem with the laws that the law enforcers and enforcing, then complain about the laws they're enforcing and who put those laws there in the first place.


This is the thing. They're paid to keep putting more laws on the books. It's stupid. Show me one time ever where Congress met and took laws off the books. When your bread and butter is putting up more laws no matter, you can bet some stupid ones are going to show up. Throw in a gestapo police force that benefits from confiscating property, and you have what you see here today. I know liberals don't want this, and other conservatives I know as well as myself don't want this. I'm glad to see drug laws finally getting torn down, but when the pig has been feeding for so long, you just can't cut off his food without him going ballistic.
 
2013-03-26 01:56:02 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Marcus Aurelius: shroom: AverageAmericanGuy: Mad_Radhu: AverageAmericanGuy: 
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.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.

I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Then what the hell does...

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President.

...mean?  Am I taking you out of context by quoting you verbatim?

You're twisting his words all around when you repeat them back to him in the same order.

Why am I not surprised libs will treat posts as "living documents" that change meaning as the circumstances fit?


Did you really mean that, or are you taking yourself out of context again?
 
2013-03-26 01:56:41 PM

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


That's what I'm wondering. TFA makes no mention of that. Drug dogs are VERY misused in this country, it would be nice to see them thrown out altogether except for those trained to sniff bombs at airports.
 
2013-03-26 01:58:33 PM

Brainsick: AverageAmericanGuy: Why am I not surprised libs will treat posts as "living documents" that change meaning as the circumstances fit?

Because you're a willfully ignorant piece of troll-sh*t who paints with a broader brush than most?


/Educated guess


Way to raise the level of conversation with such an ugly ad hominem.
 
2013-03-26 02:00:13 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 ever listen to the arguments made before the supreme court?  They really are no better than the arguments you hear from the trolls on either side of an issue here on fark.
 
2013-03-26 02:02:19 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Brainsick: AverageAmericanGuy: Why am I not surprised libs will treat posts as "living documents" that change meaning as the circumstances fit?

Because you're a willfully ignorant piece of troll-sh*t who paints with a broader brush than most?


/Educated guess

Way to raise the level of conversation with such an ugly ad hominem.


I was just answering your question

/and I think anything above 'durr! Hurr, LIBS LIBS! DURRRRP..." is raising the level of this 'conversation' in your case.
 
2013-03-26 02:04:08 PM

muck4doo: Magorn: Gecko Gingrich: I wonder if this will apply to automobiles as well?

very unlikely.  the majority opinion hinged on the idea of the Curtilage of the house and the very high expectation of privacy we have in our house and its immediate surroundings.  All the 4th amendment jurisprudence says there is a far lower expectation of privacy attached to your automobile, even to the extent that in Belton  th ecurt ruled cops are basically entitled to conduct a awarrantless search of your whole car, if they have the same level of propbable cause that they think would entitled them to a warrant if they were to ask for one, which they then don;t have to.

Cop: Can I search your car?
You: No.
Cop: Sounds suspicious. Probable cause.

Ok citizen, you may go on your merry way.

Cop follows the car.  You see him behind you thinking the cop will turn off eventually.  Cop doesn't.  This makes you nervous.  You keep glancing at your rearview mirror to see if he/she turns off.  This causes you to swerve.  Cop flashes lights.  Cop gets out and wants to know what kind of drugs you are on since you are driving erratically.  Says he has probable cause now to search your car.

FTFY
 
2013-03-26 02:04:33 PM

elvindeath: 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 A PROVEN TRAITOR AND TERRORIST without warrant, search or trial.


Fixed, for the pro-terrorist Islam-licker.
 
2013-03-26 02:05:13 PM

Phinn: I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars:  What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals.  But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons?  Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional?  What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?


The "war on drugs" vs the "war on terror".

For practical purposes, it would seem to me that in both cases the "war" has been far more damaging to society as a whole than the "threat".
 
2013-03-26 02:05:35 PM

Marcus Aurelius: AverageAmericanGuy: Marcus Aurelius:
You're twisting his words all around when you repeat them back to him in the same order.

Why am I not surprised libs will treat posts as "living documents" that change meaning as the circumstances fit?

Did you really mean that, or are you taking yourself out of context again?


Well, it might have been confusing to you because it was actually a rhetorical question. I use the rhetorical question to make the point that libs are frequently proponents of "living document" interpretations of the Constitution and light-heartedly suggest that the same is being done to my post.

As to your question, I mean both my original post and the one you are questioning.

Perhaps you ought to go back and actually read what I wrote in order to realize that I have been completely forthright in what I have said.
 
2013-03-26 02:05:57 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.


Trespass law has nothing to do with the 4th amendment, mr alito.  Go back to law school.
2nd, even if the the postal dude found pot plants on the porch while delivering mail and then reported it to the police, the 4th amendment shouldn't apply to the postal worker's actions, as while he's a government actor, there's an implied consent he is allowed onto the porch by the property owner.
 
2013-03-26 02:07:23 PM

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


The JUST ruled on this and they said, no, a cop with a dog can search your car whenever he likes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Harris
 
2013-03-26 02:08:25 PM

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


Almost certainly not.  The real issue here is that they were on the front porch of the house, clearly part of the property and used the dog to detect the drugs.  The ruling really isn't terribly different from the Kyllo case.

A car would be sitting on a public roadway or in a public place like a parking lot, so the same level of privacy isn't going to apply.
 
2013-03-26 02:09:03 PM

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

The JUST ruled on this and they said, no, a cop with a dog can search your car whenever he likes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Harris


I am shocked!
 
2013-03-26 02:09:18 PM

Felgraf: Yes. It would be unconstitutional.

This is not 24.


This is 24:
static.tvfanatic.com
 
2013-03-26 02:09:42 PM

PsyLord: muck4doo: Magorn: Gecko Gingrich: I wonder if this will apply to automobiles as well?

very unlikely.  the majority opinion hinged on the idea of the Curtilage of the house and the very high expectation of privacy we have in our house and its immediate surroundings.  All the 4th amendment jurisprudence says there is a far lower expectation of privacy attached to your automobile, even to the extent that in Belton  th ecurt ruled cops are basically entitled to conduct a awarrantless search of your whole car, if they have the same level of propbable cause that they think would entitled them to a warrant if they were to ask for one, which they then don;t have to.

Cop: Can I search your car?
You: No.
Cop: Sounds suspicious. Probable cause. Ok citizen, you may go on your merry way.

Cop follows the car.  You see him behind you thinking the cop will turn off eventually.  Cop doesn't.  This makes you nervous.  You keep glancing at your rearview mirror to see if he/she turns off.  This causes you to swerve.  Cop flashes lights.  Cop gets out and wants to know what kind of drugs you are on since you are driving erratically.  Says he has probable cause now to search your car.

FTFY


Yep. That works too.
 
2013-03-26 02:10:04 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Perhaps you ought to go back and actually read what I wrote in order to realize that I have been completely forthright in what I have said.


Which is another way of saying, "Look, I'm not going to admit that I screwed up, so I'm going to continue to assert that the dumb words I said are too high-falutin' for you simpletons to understand, and I will be leaving this thread shortly."
 
2013-03-26 02:10:17 PM
I'm shocked!  Shocked I say!

Not just that Scalia got it right, which is definitely surprising...  but that one marijuana plant can generate about 3900 dollars worth of street value.  That's pretty close to 1800 oz of product off of one plant (judging by southern Ontario prices per oz).  I didn't know that one plant could support 112 lbs of bud.
 
2013-03-26 02:10:38 PM

Amos Quito: Phinn: I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars:  What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals.  But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons?  Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional?  What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?

The "war on drugs" vs the "war on terror".

For practical purposes, it would seem to me that in both cases the "war" has been far more damaging to society as a whole than the "threat".


Nailed it.
 
2013-03-26 02:10:47 PM

elvindeath: 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.


Eh, if only this were true in all cases.
 
2013-03-26 02:11:20 PM

muck4doo: Magorn: Gecko Gingrich: I wonder if this will apply to automobiles as well?

very unlikely.  the majority opinion hinged on the idea of the Curtilage of the house and the very high expectation of privacy we have in our house and its immediate surroundings.  All the 4th amendment jurisprudence says there is a far lower expectation of privacy attached to your automobile, even to the extent that in Belton  th ecurt ruled cops are basically entitled to conduct a awarrantless search of your whole car, if they have the same level of propbable cause that they think would entitled them to a warrant if they were to ask for one, which they then don;t have to.

Cop: Can I search your car?
You: No.
Cop: Sounds suspicious. Probable cause.


Some cold comfort:
I'm not going to claim that probable cause is a standard with a high threshold, but courts have generally found that denial of consent alone is insufficient grounds to find probable cause.  There needs to be some other specific, articulable facts that give rise to a belief that a search will reveal evidence of a crime.  Certainly, LEOs can and do lie about those facts, but getting to a "reasonable" search is not as simple as claiming something is suspicious.
 
2013-03-26 02:12:37 PM

muck4doo: Liberal or Conservative, this should be what you want. Less liberties for the police to go messing with people over stupid things.


/cracks a beer, passes it to muck
 
2013-03-26 02:12:50 PM

weiserfireman: Scalia and Thomas don't care what the result is, as long as the logic feels sound to them.


If only this were true in all cases.
 
2013-03-26 02:12:58 PM

PsyLord: Says he has probable cause now to search your car.


Saying it and having it are not the same thing.  In the example you gave, he would not have it.
 
2013-03-26 02:13:26 PM

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

That's what I'm wondering. TFA makes no mention of that. Drug dogs are VERY misused in this country, it would be nice to see them thrown out altogether except for those trained to sniff bombs at airports.


Typical lib. Wants higher canine unemployment so all the poor puppies are sucking at the government teat and eating taxpayer funded kibble and become the new rabid dogs of the demoncratic party.

I bet you support those welfare biatches that drop litters of 9 pups at a time, too. No need to get a job, little Rufus, just have puppies and the government will take care of everything!

/I keed I keed
 
2013-03-26 02:14:35 PM
This does not seem particularly shocking or suprising to me. There is an established precedent around curtelage, and if peering through a window is out of bounds for gathering evidence for a warrant search, having a dog sniff around outside the house and then trying to use that for a warrant search should be equally out of bounds.

I know it is fashionable to assume that all Supreme Court Judges are either redteam or blueteam, but more often than not, that's not the case. This seems to be a good decision arrived at by good law.
 
2013-03-26 02:15:04 PM

Lando Lincoln: AverageAmericanGuy: Perhaps you ought to go back and actually read what I wrote in order to realize that I have been completely forthright in what I have said.

Which is another way of saying, "Look, I'm not going to admit that I screwed up, so I'm going to continue to assert that the dumb words I said are too high-falutin' for you simpletons to understand, and I will be leaving this thread shortly."


Well, it is 3 in the morning and I ought to get some shut eye.

But no, that's not my intent at all in saying "read what I wrote". If you think that I said that 1) a Democrat appointed Alito or 2) Obama appointed Alito, you're mistaken.

We all stand around and shout and point fingers, but it's pretty clear no one's actually listening to what people are saying. It's pretty sad. I'd expect this kind of behavior from Freepers, not Farkers.
 
2013-03-26 02:15:26 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.


Theres an implied agreement that by having a mail box on your porch, youre allowing a postal worker onto your property for a brief period in the course of their duties. If you have a mailbox at the end of your drive and a postal worker is hanging out on your porch, then yes, they are probably trespassing.
 
2013-03-26 02:17:43 PM

Civil Discourse: muck4doo: Magorn: Gecko Gingrich: I wonder if this will apply to automobiles as well?

very unlikely.  the majority opinion hinged on the idea of the Curtilage of the house and the very high expectation of privacy we have in our house and its immediate surroundings.  All the 4th amendment jurisprudence says there is a far lower expectation of privacy attached to your automobile, even to the extent that in Belton  th ecurt ruled cops are basically entitled to conduct a awarrantless search of your whole car, if they have the same level of propbable cause that they think would entitled them to a warrant if they were to ask for one, which they then don;t have to.

Cop: Can I search your car?
You: No.
Cop: Sounds suspicious. Probable cause.

Some cold comfort:
I'm not going to claim that probable cause is a standard with a high threshold, but courts have generally found that denial of consent alone is insufficient grounds to find probable cause.  There needs to be some other specific, articulable facts that give rise to a belief that a search will reveal evidence of a crime.  Certainly, LEOs can and do lie about those facts, but getting to a "reasonable" search is not as simple as claiming something is suspicious.


Oh, but it is. One simple sentence, six words to start, and you're golden, as an LEO:

"Based on my training and experience..._______________"

... I searched the bathroom cupboards for contraband items
... I entered the house upon smelling a strong odor of marijuana
...the individual seemed nervous and jumpy
...I searched the individual


/etc
 
2013-03-26 02:20:40 PM
I'm torn.  I'm for drug legalization, so it's good in that sense, but again it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location.  It would be tantamount to saying that police officers need to wear a blind fold if they go knock on someones door for an otherwise legal reason because they might see a pot plant sitting on the window sill.
 
2013-03-26 02:21:01 PM

Mercutio74: I'm shocked!  Shocked I say!

Not just that Scalia got it right, which is definitely surprising...  but that one marijuana plant can generate about 3900 dollars worth of street value.  That's pretty close to 1800 oz of product off of one plant (judging by southern Ontario prices per oz).  I didn't know that one plant could support 112 lbs of bud.


Where do you get $34/lb weed?
 
2013-03-26 02:21:02 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Lando Lincoln: AverageAmericanGuy: Perhaps you ought to go back and actually read what I wrote in order to realize that I have been completely forthright in what I have said.

Which is another way of saying, "Look, I'm not going to admit that I screwed up, so I'm going to continue to assert that the dumb words I said are too high-falutin' for you simpletons to understand, and I will be leaving this thread shortly."

Well, it is 3 in the morning and I ought to get some shut eye.

But no, that's not my intent at all in saying "read what I wrote". If you think that I said that 1) a Democrat appointed Alito or 2) Obama appointed Alito, you're mistaken.

We all stand around and shout and point fingers, but it's pretty clear no one's actually listening to what people are saying. It's pretty sad. I'd expect this kind of behavior from Freepers, not Farkers.


Dude. You've been quoted. Your post, your words. Own it, and get some rest. We'll see you tomorrow
ts2.mm.bing.net
 
2013-03-26 02:21:18 PM
*ctrl f drone

Interesting, not a single one of you realizes the potential positive impact this could have as police forces around the nation start to utilize drones in surveillance.
 
2013-03-26 02:21:18 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.


The real surprise here is that Antonin (criminals don't deserve the 4th amendment) Scalia disagreed with that argument.
 
2013-03-26 02:21:41 PM
Anthony Kennedy you disappoint  me
 
2013-03-26 02:22:24 PM

Kittypie070: elvindeath: 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 A PROVEN TRAITOR AND TERRORIST without warrant, search or trial.

Fixed, for the pro-terrorist Islam-licker.


Oh really ? Proven in what context ? You mean the Admin just saying it ? Because unless they have something like proof that can be challenged in a court of law they can stuff it. And Advocating violence against the US is protected free speech. And I'll throw you a curve ball. Perhaps they had proof, what say you about the 16 year old son who was murdered in a separate incident weeks later ? Or how about the fact that these same people you so easily trust to carry out these assassinations are the very same people who gave the guy an award, invited him to the Pentagon and told everyone he was a moderate ? Or how about all the guys in GITMO who have been cleared of charges but they just keep in cages because they don't know what to do with them. I don't know about you but I don't trust their judgement at all. They do what is convenient and not what is lawful and moral.
 
2013-03-26 02:22:46 PM

Brainsick: AverageAmericanGuy: Lando Lincoln: AverageAmericanGuy: Perhaps you ought to go back and actually read what I wrote in order to realize that I have been completely forthright in what I have said.

Which is another way of saying, "Look, I'm not going to admit that I screwed up, so I'm going to continue to assert that the dumb words I said are too high-falutin' for you simpletons to understand, and I will be leaving this thread shortly."

Well, it is 3 in the morning and I ought to get some shut eye.

But no, that's not my intent at all in saying "read what I wrote". If you think that I said that 1) a Democrat appointed Alito or 2) Obama appointed Alito, you're mistaken.

We all stand around and shout and point fingers, but it's pretty clear no one's actually listening to what people are saying. It's pretty sad. I'd expect this kind of behavior from Freepers, not Farkers.

Dude. You've been quoted. Your post, your words. Own it, and get some rest. We'll see you tomorrow
[ts2.mm.bing.net image 300x228]


The quote doesn't say what you or he implies it says.

It certainly doesn't say what Mad Radhu said.

And yes, I will sleep now. Thank you.
 
2013-03-26 02:23:58 PM

jigger: Where do you get $34/lb weed?


Perhaps my math is wrong.  I can get an oz for $200.

I'm saying that according to the article, the 179 plants had a street value of $700,000.  That means that each plant would be worth about $3910 each.  Since I pay $200 for a oz, that's
 
2013-03-26 02:24:07 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: The quote doesn't say what you or he implies it says.


Me no good subject verb agreement? That's unpossible.
 
2013-03-26 02:24:51 PM
yeah, I did the math wrong... and i'm not even high right now.
 
2013-03-26 02:25:07 PM

Silly Jesus: I'm torn.  I'm for drug legalization, so it's good in that sense, but again it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location.  It would be tantamount to saying that police officers need to wear a blind fold if they go knock on someones door for an otherwise legal reason because they might see a pot plant sitting on the window sill.


If the dog is an officer, and not just a tool or piece of equipment of law enforcement, then the dog can come testify at the trial under oath.  "Did you smell weed?  One bark for yes, two for no..." "bark bark"  "Double yes!!!"
 
2013-03-26 02:26:48 PM

Silly Jesus: it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location


Officer(dog)
Officer/Dog
Officer Dog

A Dog isn't an officer, can't be reasoned with, can't use arbitration for defense, can't join the union.
(I know you get charged with assaulting an officer if you hurt one, but that's a loophole) A dog is not a person who has judgement and 'uses his senses'. A dog (and by extension, that dog's sensory organs) is a tool, is what I'm trying to say.
 
2013-03-26 02:27:11 PM
JustGetItRight: A car would be sitting on a public roadway or in a public place like a parking lot, so the same level of privacy isn't going to apply.

If your car was sitting in your driveway, this ruling would apply. Also, cars are mobile and that has a lot to do with cops being able to search without a warrant. In the time it would take to get a warrant the car could be driven away.
 
2013-03-26 02:28:39 PM

Theaetetus: And if there's someone locked in a trunk that you just pulled over, screaming to get out, a 10 minute phone call to an on-duty judge won't really make much difference. It's not like you have to say "gosh, no warrant, I guess we'll let you drive off."


Are you kidding me? You think they still need a warrant if someone is screaming that they need help? Yes in 10 minutes you could be dead so that is a difference.

Oh and you are saying all they need as a "verbal warrant"? It doesn't need to actually be written out and official like.

Your answers to these point seem pretty glib and not thought out.
 
2013-03-26 02:29:21 PM

Silly Jesus: I'm torn.  I'm for drug legalization, so it's good in that sense, but again it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location.  It would be tantamount to saying that police officers need to wear a blind fold if they go knock on someones door for an otherwise legal reason because they might see a pot plant sitting on the window sill.


The dog isn't saying anything.  The dog's handler is interpreting the dog's signals and claiming that he/she knows what the dog meant.

The dog is then just a tool like a vapor sniffing device or infrared scanner.
 
2013-03-26 02:29:46 PM
Really? Now we are supposed to trust in officer dog? My tortoise wants to bust a few people too.
 
2013-03-26 02:30:07 PM
No, this is actually pretty consistent.
 
2013-03-26 02:30:43 PM

Profedius: Corvus: 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.

The law does not consider the event you described a search, however if the officer heard a knocking sound coming from the trunk without a voice declaring a crime in progress then an investigation of the trunk would be considered a search. Sighting an extreme event in order to support illegal searches does not account for the great many searches that should not have been allowed even more so when the event does not pertain to the topic at hand.


I didn't say it did. But thank you for play strawman theater. It had to do with the comment I was responding to. If you don't want to be part of that conversation then why not do us all a favor and just shut up.
 
2013-03-26 02:30:45 PM
Mr. Toitle and Kitty Cash say freeze! Put your hands in the air!
 
2013-03-26 02:32:09 PM

Silly Jesus: I'm torn.  I'm for drug legalization, so it's good in that sense, but again it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location.  It would be tantamount to saying that police officers need to wear a blind fold if they go knock on someones door for an otherwise legal reason because they might see a pot plant sitting on the window sill.


The ruling doesn't say that at all. It says that the police cannot use enhanced techniques without a search warrant. A cop coming to your door viewing contraband in plain sight is fair game. A cop coming up to your door with a device that lets him see through walls as an example is not allowed without a warrant. . Taking a device (dog or whatever) on to someones property constitutes a search and requires a warrant.
 
2013-03-26 02:33:03 PM

Kittypie070: muck4doo: Liberal or Conservative, this should be what you want. Less liberties for the police to go messing with people over stupid things.

/cracks a beer, passes it to muck


Cheers!

/I should have listened last week
 
2013-03-26 02:34:20 PM

Silly Jesus: but again it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location.


Actually the opinion of the court is that the dog is not legally allowed to be there without a warrant, period. If the cops want to use a dog to sniff for the presence of drugs inside of a house they first have to get a warrant to do so.
 
2013-03-26 02:35:15 PM

Profedius: Sighting an extreme event in order to support illegal searches

...

I wasn't. Next time before responding read what the person was responding to instead of just jumping in and being an ass.
 
2013-03-26 02:36:29 PM

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: but again it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location.

Actually the opinion of the court is that the dog is not legally allowed to be there without a warrant, period. If the cops want to use a dog to sniff for the presence of drugs inside of a house they first have to get a warrant to do so.


And another nails it.
 
2013-03-26 02:37:27 PM

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


No shiat!  Thomas is like Scalia's hand puppet, but the string that makes the mouth move is broken.
 
2013-03-26 02:37:35 PM

kindms: A cop coming to your door viewing contraband in plain sight is fair game


Actually it would have to be in plain sight from some public space or you would have to open your door to the cop. If you don't open the door, then unless they can see it from the sidewalk, no dice. Scalia is pretty clear that peering through windows is not acceptable as it is not something a person expects as a normal occurrence. If you see someone snooping around your windows, you call the cops. If a cop wants to snoop around your windows, per Scalia's opinion, they need a warrant first.
 
2013-03-26 02:42:54 PM
I really don't get how anyone can call themselves conservative, but support draconian drug laws. It goes against everything I thought conservative stood for.
 
2013-03-26 02:46:33 PM
24.media.tumblr.com24.media.tumblr.com24.media.tumblr.com24.media.tumblr.com
24.media.tumblr.com24.media.tumblr.com24.media.tumblr.com24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-26 02:52:05 PM

muck4doo: I really don't get how anyone can call themselves conservative, but support draconian drug laws. It goes against everything I thought conservative stood for.


Conservatives are authoritarian about other people's lives, libertarians for their own.
 
2013-03-26 02:55:16 PM

muck4doo: I really don't get how anyone can call themselves conservative, but support draconian drug laws. It goes against everything I thought conservative stood for.


Today's 'Conservative' is more liberal than he/she thinks, but only when something affects them or their immediate family/community. When the issue is something they can knee-jerk to, that they have no personal stake in, it's 'those people' who need to be controlled by the government. That's the key
 
2013-03-26 02:56:11 PM

jaytkay: muck4doo: I really don't get how anyone can call themselves conservative, but support draconian drug laws. It goes against everything I thought conservative stood for.

Conservatives are authoritarian about other people's lives, libertarians for their own.


Liberals are also surprisingly authoritarian about other people's lives too, they just tend to focus on different aspects.
 
2013-03-26 02:56:15 PM

jaytkay: muck4doo: I really don't get how anyone can call themselves conservative, but support draconian drug laws. It goes against everything I thought conservative stood for.

Conservatives are authoritarian about other people's lives, libertarians for their own.


Damn you and your succinct, accurate summation of my post. Before I posted it!

;)
 
2013-03-26 02:59:29 PM

muck4doo: riverwalk barfly: muck4doo: Liberal or Conservative, this should be what you want. Less liberties for the police to go messing with people over stupid things.

Never allow the police into your house.    They will always find something.   Power grabs not social servants.

/not to mention the bud in the closet.

Whether you know it or not, you probably broke a bunch of laws today you never even heard of. Yes, they will always find something.


Don't get me wrong.   I'm 48 years old.   I won't lie - I've been in trouble with the law.   no felonies, nothing that actually hurt someone else.    In fact, probably the opposite.   I've had peace officers put the cuffs on me and apologize.   I've also been physically abused by police that felt it necessary to show that they were in control.    Hence my distrust in the police.   And if you have never had your hands cuffed behind your back and spent a night in jail, Don't tell me about your respect for the law.
 
2013-03-26 03:19:19 PM

Corvus: Theaetetus: And if there's someone locked in a trunk that you just pulled over, screaming to get out, a 10 minute phone call to an on-duty judge won't really make much difference. It's not like you have to say "gosh, no warrant, I guess we'll let you drive off."

Are you kidding me? You think they still need a warrant if someone is screaming that they need help? Yes in 10 minutes you could be dead so that is a difference.

Oh and you are saying all they need as a "verbal warrant"? It doesn't need to actually be written out and official like.

Your answers to these point seem pretty glib and not thought out.


Someone calling for help from a locked trunk nearly perfectly describes the "exigent circumstances" exception to the 4th amendment where a search can be conducted without a warrant
 
2013-03-26 03:21:30 PM

Magorn: Corvus: Theaetetus: And if there's someone locked in a trunk that you just pulled over, screaming to get out, a 10 minute phone call to an on-duty judge won't really make much difference. It's not like you have to say "gosh, no warrant, I guess we'll let you drive off."

Are you kidding me? You think they still need a warrant if someone is screaming that they need help? Yes in 10 minutes you could be dead so that is a difference.

Oh and you are saying all they need as a "verbal warrant"? It doesn't need to actually be written out and official like.

Your answers to these point seem pretty glib and not thought out.

Someone calling for help from a locked trunk nearly perfectly describes the "exigent circumstances" exception to the 4th amendment where a search can be conducted without a warrant


Yep and couple of people in here think that police shouldn't be able to do that. That's my point.
 
2013-03-26 03:22:39 PM

muck4doo: I really don't get how anyone can call themselves conservative, but support draconian drug laws. It goes against everything I thought conservative stood for.


You're thinking of libertarianism, not conservatism. Conservatives want to make sure EVERYONE is miserable.
 
2013-03-26 03:24:34 PM

pedrop357: Liberals are also surprisingly authoritarian about other people's lives too, they just tend to focus on different aspects.


Mmm hmm. Damn those hippies and their staunch belief in stopping corporations from happily polluting and making tons of money! Bunch of jack-booted thugs, all of them!
 
2013-03-26 03:27:58 PM

Corvus: Magorn: Corvus: Theaetetus: And if there's someone locked in a trunk that you just pulled over, screaming to get out, a 10 minute phone call to an on-duty judge won't really make much difference. It's not like you have to say "gosh, no warrant, I guess we'll let you drive off."

Are you kidding me? You think they still need a warrant if someone is screaming that they need help? Yes in 10 minutes you could be dead so that is a difference.

Oh and you are saying all they need as a "verbal warrant"? It doesn't need to actually be written out and official like.

Your answers to these point seem pretty glib and not thought out.

Someone calling for help from a locked trunk nearly perfectly describes the "exigent circumstances" exception to the 4th amendment where a search can be conducted without a warrant

Yep and couple of people in here think that police shouldn't be able to do that. That's my point.


Straw man?    How about when your neighbor thinks he hears screams from your house?   Or maybe your dog is barking too much?    Does that give them the right?    I guess it does when you are one of the people that believes in submission.
 
2013-03-26 03:31:13 PM
Finally a decent decision from SCOTUS!
 
2013-03-26 03:31:29 PM

riverwalk barfly: Corvus: Magorn: Corvus: Theaetetus: And if there's someone locked in a trunk that you just pulled over, screaming to get out, a 10 minute phone call to an on-duty judge won't really make much difference. It's not like you have to say "gosh, no warrant, I guess we'll let you drive off."

Are you kidding me? You think they still need a warrant if someone is screaming that they need help? Yes in 10 minutes you could be dead so that is a difference.

Oh and you are saying all they need as a "verbal warrant"? It doesn't need to actually be written out and official like.

Your answers to these point seem pretty glib and not thought out.

Someone calling for help from a locked trunk nearly perfectly describes the "exigent circumstances" exception to the 4th amendment where a search can be conducted without a warrant

Yep and couple of people in here think that police shouldn't be able to do that. That's my point.

Straw man?    How about when your neighbor thinks he hears screams from your house?   Or maybe your dog is barking too much?    Does that give them the right?    I guess it does when you are one of the people that believes in submission.


Yes those are Strawmans of what I was saying very good.
 
2013-03-26 03:35:13 PM

Onkel Buck: He pisses you off, thats enough for me


Conservative Politics in a nutshell, folks.  Nothing but willful ignorance and spite.

Hell of a way to run a railroad...
 
2013-03-26 03:36:19 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Stop putting words in my mouth.


Oh, for Fark's sake.

Into the box with you.
 
2013-03-26 03:42:13 PM

Fizpez: 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.)


A few weeks ago they ruled on roadside dog sniffs. Basically no matter how many false positives a dog has its nose still gives probable cause but you can attempt to argue in court that the cop lied/signaled the dog so there are reasonable protections against police abuse (LOL!)
 
2013-03-26 03:43:13 PM

Mercutio74: I'm shocked!  Shocked I say!

Not just that Scalia got it right, which is definitely surprising...  but that one marijuana plant can generate about 3900 dollars worth of street value.  That's pretty close to 1800 oz of product off of one plant (judging by southern Ontario prices per oz).  I didn't know that one plant could support 112 lbs of bud.


Really. 2$ and change per oz? Methinks your maths are a bit off.
 
2013-03-26 03:44:36 PM

stonicus: Silly Jesus: I'm torn.  I'm for drug legalization, so it's good in that sense, but again it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location.  It would be tantamount to saying that police officers need to wear a blind fold if they go knock on someones door for an otherwise legal reason because they might see a pot plant sitting on the window sill.

If the dog is an officer, and not just a tool or piece of equipment of law enforcement, then the dog can come testify at the trial under oath.  "Did you smell weed?  One bark for yes, two for no..." "bark bark"  "Double yes!!!"


Um, that's not the standard.  The signal of the dog can be testified to by the handler.  SCOTUS reaffirmed that.
 
2013-03-26 03:46:21 PM

Brainsick: Silly Jesus: it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location

Officer(dog)
Officer/Dog
Officer Dog

A Dog isn't an officer, can't be reasoned with, can't use arbitration for defense, can't join the union.
(I know you get charged with assaulting an officer if you hurt one, but that's a loophole) A dog is not a person who has judgement and 'uses his senses'. A dog (and by extension, that dog's sensory organs) is a tool, is what I'm trying to say.


The officer's gun is a tool.  As are his handcuffs.  Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?  The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer.  I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.
 
2013-03-26 03:48:42 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?


The dog is the key here.  The dog is not required for a normal "Go knock on the front door" so Alito's dissent is a bunch of bullox.  From my experience the dog generally stays in the car.

 I mean seriously:  Knock Knock.  Guy opens door  & see's officer with a dog.  Guy:  "um yeah".  Officer: "Can I  enter the premises with my dog?"

This cop was purposely fishing for evidence by bringing the dog with him.  He basically brought his "Binoculars" and peeked inside the house violating the curtilage.
 
2013-03-26 03:49:49 PM

Silly Jesus: Brainsick: Silly Jesus: it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location

Officer(dog)
Officer/Dog
Officer Dog

A Dog isn't an officer, can't be reasoned with, can't use arbitration for defense, can't join the union.
(I know you get charged with assaulting an officer if you hurt one, but that's a loophole) A dog is not a person who has judgement and 'uses his senses'. A dog (and by extension, that dog's sensory organs) is a tool, is what I'm trying to say.

The officer's gun is a tool.  As are his handcuffs.  Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer.  I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.


He can take them with him, but he can't use them.
 
2013-03-26 03:50:27 PM

pedrop357: Silly Jesus: I'm torn.  I'm for drug legalization, so it's good in that sense, but again it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location.  It would be tantamount to saying that police officers need to wear a blind fold if they go knock on someones door for an otherwise legal reason because they might see a pot plant sitting on the window sill.

The dog isn't saying anything.  The dog's handler is interpreting the dog's signals and claiming that he/she knows what the dog meant.

The dog is then just a tool like a vapor sniffing device or infrared scanner.


The dogs are trained, and SCOTUS reaffirmed that it is valid for the handler to interpret their behavior and testify to as much.

The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer in much the same sense that a human officer could be his partner.  I see the dog sitting at a smell the same as a human officer pointing to something that he saw.

Dog smells pot, dog sits, handler was alerted by partner that pot is present.

Human sees pot, waves to partner and points, partner is alerted by partner that pot is present.

Calling a dog an odor detection device is a bit of a stretch.  Is the cops human partner a visual detection device because he can see things and signal to his partner?
 
2013-03-26 03:52:36 PM

kindms: Silly Jesus: I'm torn.  I'm for drug legalization, so it's good in that sense, but again it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location.  It would be tantamount to saying that police officers need to wear a blind fold if they go knock on someones door for an otherwise legal reason because they might see a pot plant sitting on the window sill.

The ruling doesn't say that at all. It says that the police cannot use enhanced techniques without a search warrant. A cop coming to your door viewing contraband in plain sight is fair game. A cop coming up to your door with a device that lets him see through walls as an example is not allowed without a warrant. . Taking a device (dog or whatever) on to someones property constitutes a search and requires a warrant.


I understand that.  I am taking issue with calling a dog a device and calling smelling an advanced detection technique.  I'm saying that a dog smelling it is no different from a human seeing it.  It also doesn't violate privacy in the sense that infrared does because you can see people with infrared and there is an expectation to privacy there.  There's no expectation to privacy associated with the smell of an illegal substance.
 
2013-03-26 03:53:59 PM

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: but again it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location.

Actually the opinion of the court is that the dog is not legally allowed to be there without a warrant, period. If the cops want to use a dog to sniff for the presence of drugs inside of a house they first have to get a warrant to do so.


I disagree.  They aren't saying that the dog can't be there...that would be absurd, he's the partner of that officer.  They are saying that anything that he may smell can't be used against someone.
 
2013-03-26 03:57:38 PM

stonicus: Silly Jesus: Brainsick: Silly Jesus: it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location

Officer(dog)
Officer/Dog
Officer Dog

A Dog isn't an officer, can't be reasoned with, can't use arbitration for defense, can't join the union.
(I know you get charged with assaulting an officer if you hurt one, but that's a loophole) A dog is not a person who has judgement and 'uses his senses'. A dog (and by extension, that dog's sensory organs) is a tool, is what I'm trying to say.

The officer's gun is a tool.  As are his handcuffs.  Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer.  I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.

He can take them with him, but he can't use them.


Yeah, that's what they are saying, which is silly.  If the dog's nose is a tool then so are the officer's eyes.  Maybe they should approach doors blindfolded.
 
2013-03-26 04:02:49 PM

Lando Lincoln: pedrop357: Liberals are also surprisingly authoritarian about other people's lives too, they just tend to focus on different aspects.

Mmm hmm. Damn those hippies and their staunch belief in stopping corporations from happily polluting and making tons of money! Bunch of jack-booted thugs, all of them!


Yep, that's all liberals do.  How silly of me.
 
2013-03-26 04:03:04 PM

Silly Jesus: Brainsick: Silly Jesus: it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location

Officer(dog)
Officer/Dog
Officer Dog

A Dog isn't an officer, can't be reasoned with, can't use arbitration for defense, can't join the union.
(I know you get charged with assaulting an officer if you hurt one, but that's a loophole) A dog is not a person who has judgement and 'uses his senses'. A dog (and by extension, that dog's sensory organs) is a tool, is what I'm trying to say.

The officer's gun is a tool.  As are his handcuffs.  Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?  The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer.  I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.


The gun and cuffs are tools, but not detection devices; the dog is like an IR scanner or using his eyes to peer through the blinds. Those both require a warrant.
/Nice attempt at deflection
//and you even have a sycophant!
 
2013-03-26 04:06:12 PM

Silly Jesus: stonicus: Silly Jesus: Brainsick: Silly Jesus: it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location

Officer(dog)
Officer/Dog
Officer Dog

A Dog isn't an officer, can't be reasoned with, can't use arbitration for defense, can't join the union.
(I know you get charged with assaulting an officer if you hurt one, but that's a loophole) A dog is not a person who has judgement and 'uses his senses'. A dog (and by extension, that dog's sensory organs) is a tool, is what I'm trying to say.

The officer's gun is a tool.  As are his handcuffs.  Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer.  I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.

He can take them with him, but he can't use them.

Yeah, that's what they are saying, which is silly.  If the dog's nose is a tool then so are the officer's eyes.  Maybe they should approach doors blindfolded.


Then the dog needs to the stand and explain how he/she knew that what they were smelling was marijuana, as well as explaining any official training they've received.
 
2013-03-26 04:06:50 PM

pedrop357: Then the dog needs to take the stand and explain how he/she knew that what they were smelling was marijuana, as well as explaining any official training they've received.

 
2013-03-26 04:08:43 PM

Brainsick: Silly Jesus: Brainsick: Silly Jesus: it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location

Officer(dog)
Officer/Dog
Officer Dog

A Dog isn't an officer, can't be reasoned with, can't use arbitration for defense, can't join the union.
(I know you get charged with assaulting an officer if you hurt one, but that's a loophole) A dog is not a person who has judgement and 'uses his senses'. A dog (and by extension, that dog's sensory organs) is a tool, is what I'm trying to say.

The officer's gun is a tool.  As are his handcuffs.  Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?  The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer.  I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.

The gun and cuffs are tools, but not detection devices; the dog is like an IR scanner or using his eyes to peer through the blinds. Those both require a warrant.
/Nice attempt at deflection
//and you even have a sycophant!


I don't get why a nose on a dog is a super duper detection device all of a sudden.  It's not enhanced at all.  You really think that a dog nose is closer to an IR scanner than a human eye?

Human eye - Meh, not a tool
IR Scanner - Super duper high tech device
Dog nose - Super duper high tech device
 
2013-03-26 04:09:18 PM

Lando Lincoln: Yeah, that's pretty much the only reason why Republicans continue to get votes. "Cuz they piss off the libs!"

You are a credit to your party.


before your posts I couldn't picture why that would be satisfying.

Lando Lincoln: Mmm hmm. Damn those hippies and their staunch belief in stopping corporations from happily polluting and making tons of money! Bunch of jack-booted thugs, all of them!


What is this Captain Planet where the evil corporation makes money by just simply polluting?

media.comicvine.com
 
2013-03-26 04:09:24 PM

pedrop357: Silly Jesus: stonicus: Silly Jesus: Brainsick: Silly Jesus: it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location

Officer(dog)
Officer/Dog
Officer Dog

A Dog isn't an officer, can't be reasoned with, can't use arbitration for defense, can't join the union.
(I know you get charged with assaulting an officer if you hurt one, but that's a loophole) A dog is not a person who has judgement and 'uses his senses'. A dog (and by extension, that dog's sensory organs) is a tool, is what I'm trying to say.

The officer's gun is a tool.  As are his handcuffs.  Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer.  I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.

He can take them with him, but he can't use them.

Yeah, that's what they are saying, which is silly.  If the dog's nose is a tool then so are the officer's eyes.  Maybe they should approach doors blindfolded.

Then the dog needs to the stand and explain how he/she knew that what they were smelling was marijuana, as well as explaining any official training they've received.


Not sure if serious.
 
2013-03-26 04:11:18 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: shroom: AverageAmericanGuy: Mad_Radhu: AverageAmericanGuy: 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.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.

I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Then what the hell does...

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President.

...mean?  Am I taking you out of context by quoting you verbatim?

Your logic is flawed. What you think I said and what I said are not the same.


No. What you purposely implied is what was correctly inferred. You were called out for being wrong, now you're backpedaling. You are being dishonest and unwilling to admit a mistake.
 
2013-03-26 04:12:30 PM

Silly Jesus: The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer.



And in most cases, the former is likely brighter (and certainly more honorable) than the latter.
 
2013-03-26 04:15:06 PM

Silly Jesus: The officer's gun is a tool. As are his handcuffs. Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer. I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.

He can take them with him, but he can't use them.

Yeah, that's what they are saying, which is silly. If the dog's nose is a tool then so are the officer's eyes. Maybe they should approach doors blindfolded.

Then the dog needs to the stand and explain how he/she knew that what they were smelling was marijuana, as well as explaining any official training they've received.

Not sure if serious.


If the dog is another cop and their "word" is to be treated like the word of another cop, then it follows that their training and experience should be able to be directly questioned in court.

If a human cop says that he smelled marijuana and that justified the search, but on the stand it's revealed that he can't distinguish the smell of marijuana from the smell of a a couple dozen different, perfectly legal, plants, that's a problem.

If the "word" of the dog is going to be enough to justify a search, the person being searched should able to question the dog's qualifications directly.

in reality, the partner of the dog is telling you what they THINK the dog is indicating, and then suggesting that this interpreted indicator is enough to justify a search.  In this case, the dog is much more like a tool.
 
2013-03-26 04:19:23 PM

Silly Jesus: Brainsick: Silly Jesus: Brainsick: Silly Jesus: it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location

Officer(dog)
Officer/Dog
Officer Dog

A Dog isn't an officer, can't be reasoned with, can't use arbitration for defense, can't join the union.
(I know you get charged with assaulting an officer if you hurt one, but that's a loophole) A dog is not a person who has judgement and 'uses his senses'. A dog (and by extension, that dog's sensory organs) is a tool, is what I'm trying to say.

The officer's gun is a tool.  As are his handcuffs.  Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?  The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer.  I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.

The gun and cuffs are tools, but not detection devices; the dog is like an IR scanner or using his eyes to peer through the blinds. Those both require a warrant.
/Nice attempt at deflection
//and you even have a sycophant!

I don't get why a nose on a dog is a super duper detection device all of a sudden.  It's not enhanced at all.  You really think that a dog nose is closer to an IR scanner than a human eye?

Human eye - Meh, not a tool                                   -

Correct
IR Scanner - Super duper high tech device             - Correct
Dog nose - Super duper high tech device               - Correct

A dog's olfactory sense is (depending on breed) between 1,000 and 10,000 times more powerful than a human's.  Privacy laws are based on privacy from other individuals.  Anything in range of a human being's senses isn't private.  Your pot plant in the front yard, it is reasonable a police officer could see that.  The one in your basement, not so much.  If discovery requires the use of something beyond the senses of the human officer, that is considered using tools or devices.  This includes IR scanners, wiretaps, thermal imaging, and dog noses.
 
2013-03-26 04:21:43 PM

pedrop357: Lando Lincoln: pedrop357: Liberals are also surprisingly authoritarian about other people's lives too, they just tend to focus on different aspects.

Mmm hmm. Damn those hippies and their staunch belief in stopping corporations from happily polluting and making tons of money! Bunch of jack-booted thugs, all of them!

Yep, that's all liberals do.  How silly of me.


Feel free to provide some counter-examples which back up your claim.
 
2013-03-26 04:22:20 PM

pedrop357: in reality, the partner of the dog is telling you what they THINK the dog is indicating, and then suggesting that this interpreted indicator is enough to justify a search. In this case, the dog is much more like a tool.


I should have taken this point further.

The dog isn't being used any differently than a box that samples the air and blinks a light or beeps when it detects a certain chemical trace.

At least with the box we could analyze the circuitry, sensing equipment, and calibration to see how accurate and precise the device was.

The way the dog is used is almost like the police officer building his own vapor analysis device and then claiming that whenever it beeps "like that", it means it 'smells' drugs, yet the device is unable to be deconstructed to see if it indeed is as accurate and precise as is claimed.
 
2013-03-26 04:22:34 PM
AverageAmericanGuy is the kind of guy that prefers the company of farm animals to women.I never said AverageAmericanGuy has sex with farm animals.  Nor did I say that he's not into chicks.Stop putting words into my mouth.
 
2013-03-26 04:22:44 PM

pedrop357: Silly Jesus: The officer's gun is a tool. As are his handcuffs. Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer. I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.

He can take them with him, but he can't use them.

Yeah, that's what they are saying, which is silly. If the dog's nose is a tool then so are the officer's eyes. Maybe they should approach doors blindfolded.

Then the dog needs to the stand and explain how he/she knew that what they were smelling was marijuana, as well as explaining any official training they've received.

Not sure if serious.

If the dog is another cop and their "word" is to be treated like the word of another cop, then it follows that their training and experience should be able to be directly questioned in court.

If a human cop says that he smelled marijuana and that justified the search, but on the stand it's revealed that he can't distinguish the smell of marijuana from the smell of a a couple dozen different, perfectly legal, plants, that's a problem.

If the "word" of the dog is going to be enough to justify a search, the person being searched should able to question the dog's qualifications directly.

in reality, the partner of the dog is telling you what they THINK the dog is indicating, and then suggesting that this interpreted indicator is enough to justify a search.  In this case, the dog is much more like a tool.


You're arguing with established precedent.  The training that the dog and officer go through is accepted by SCOTUS as sufficient for the handler to interpret the signals of the dog.  All the dog is doing is smelling something and essentially "saying", hey, I smell something.  I don't see that as far off from a human officer seeing something and saying to his partner, "hey, look over there at that pot plant on the window sill."
 
2013-03-26 04:24:15 PM

Lando Lincoln: pedrop357: Lando Lincoln: pedrop357: Liberals are also surprisingly authoritarian about other people's lives too, they just tend to focus on different aspects.

Mmm hmm. Damn those hippies and their staunch belief in stopping corporations from happily polluting and making tons of money! Bunch of jack-booted thugs, all of them!

Yep, that's all liberals do.  How silly of me.

Feel free to provide some counter-examples which back up your claim.


Do things like restricting drink sizes, salt content, etc. count?

How about supposedly "well intentioned" leftie campaigns against pornography stores, strip clubs?

Then we have all the protecting people from themselves nonsense at hand when they rail against liquor stores, bars, menthol cigarettes, fatty foods, etc.
 
2013-03-26 04:24:36 PM

stonicus: Silly Jesus: Brainsick: Silly Jesus: Brainsick: Silly Jesus: it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location

Officer(dog)
Officer/Dog
Officer Dog

A Dog isn't an officer, can't be reasoned with, can't use arbitration for defense, can't join the union.
(I know you get charged with assaulting an officer if you hurt one, but that's a loophole) A dog is not a person who has judgement and 'uses his senses'. A dog (and by extension, that dog's sensory organs) is a tool, is what I'm trying to say.

The officer's gun is a tool.  As are his handcuffs.  Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?  The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer.  I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.

The gun and cuffs are tools, but not detection devices; the dog is like an IR scanner or using his eyes to peer through the blinds. Those both require a warrant.
/Nice attempt at deflection
//and you even have a sycophant!

I don't get why a nose on a dog is a super duper detection device all of a sudden.  It's not enhanced at all.  You really think that a dog nose is closer to an IR scanner than a human eye?

Human eye - Meh, not a tool                                   - Correct
IR Scanner - Super duper high tech device             - Correct
Dog nose - Super duper high tech device               - Correct

A dog's olfactory sense is (depending on breed) between 1,000 and 10,000 times more powerful than a human's.  Privacy laws are based on privacy from other individuals.  Anything in range of a human being's senses isn't private.  Your pot plant in the front yard, it is reasonable a police officer could see that.  The one in your basement, not so much.  If discovery requires the use of something beyond the senses of the human officer, that is considered using tools or devices.  This includes IR scanners, wiretaps, thermal imagin ...


Good explanation.  That makes more sense to me now.

Still a little iffy on a dog nose being a super duper high tech device, but using the privacy standard of privacy from other humans does clear things up a bit.
 
2013-03-26 04:24:57 PM

pedobearapproved: before your posts I couldn't picture why that would be satisfying.


Don't lie. You totally could.

pedobearapproved: What is this Captain Planet where the evil corporation makes money by just simply polluting?


Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Corporations make money by polluting and nothing else. Ayup.
 
2013-03-26 04:25:14 PM
Silly Jesus:  All the dog is doing is smelling something and essentially "saying", hey, I smell something. I don't see that as far off from a human officer seeing something and saying to his partner, "hey, look over there at that pot plant on the window sill."

Then the dog should have no problem explaining that on the stand.
 
2013-03-26 04:26:33 PM

pedrop357: pedrop357: in reality, the partner of the dog is telling you what they THINK the dog is indicating, and then suggesting that this interpreted indicator is enough to justify a search. In this case, the dog is much more like a tool.

I should have taken this point further.

The dog isn't being used any differently than a box that samples the air and blinks a light or beeps when it detects a certain chemical trace.

At least with the box we could analyze the circuitry, sensing equipment, and calibration to see how accurate and precise the device was.

The way the dog is used is almost like the police officer building his own vapor analysis device and then claiming that whenever it beeps "like that", it means it 'smells' drugs, yet the device is unable to be deconstructed to see if it indeed is as accurate and precise as is claimed.


Are you for or against bomb sniffing / drug / tracking dogs in general?  Just curious.  You seem to be somewhat of an expert on their supposed inaccuracy.
 
2013-03-26 04:28:03 PM

pedrop357: Silly Jesus:  All the dog is doing is smelling something and essentially "saying", hey, I smell something. I don't see that as far off from a human officer seeing something and saying to his partner, "hey, look over there at that pot plant on the window sill."

Then the dog should have no problem explaining that on the stand.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-26 04:28:33 PM

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

Almost certainly not.  The real issue here is that they were on the front porch of the house, clearly part of the property and used the dog to detect the drugs.  The ruling really isn't terribly different from the Kyllo case.

A car would be sitting on a public roadway or in a public place like a parking lot, so the same level of privacy isn't going to apply.


Cars move too.   Making it easier for the bad guys to get away.   Houses don't move very fast.
 
2013-03-26 04:29:53 PM

Silly Jesus: All the dog is doing is smelling something responding to the cue from his trainer and essentially "saying", hey, I smell something I'd like my reward. I don't see that as far off from a human officer seeing  not hearing something and saying to his partner,

"Did you hear a scream?" and kicking in the door.
 
2013-03-26 04:30:35 PM
It's almost like there is another explanation to conservative views other than "they hate poor people and want to see them dead."  Woudl be more shocked if a liberal could come up with anything than anything the SCOTUS rules on.
 
2013-03-26 04:31:09 PM

Silly Jesus: Are you for or against bomb sniffing / drug / tracking dogs in general? Just curious. You seem to be somewhat of an expert on their supposed inaccuracy.


I'm against their use as justification to search without a warrant, as well as being against their "word" being valid in obtaining a warrant.

If a warrant has been obtained, use dogs, IR equipment, chemical analyzers, etc. all you want.  No warrant-no dog, IR, chemical analyzers.
 
2013-03-26 04:31:46 PM

Silly Jesus: pedrop357: Silly Jesus:  All the dog is doing is smelling something and essentially "saying", hey, I smell something. I don't see that as far off from a human officer seeing something and saying to his partner, "hey, look over there at that pot plant on the window sill."

Then the dog should have no problem explaining that on the stand.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x259]


You're the one who wants the dog's "word" treated the same as the word of a human partner.
 
2013-03-26 04:32:06 PM
fark John Roberts, Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice Samuel Alito.  Authoritarian douchebags.
 
2013-03-26 04:33:15 PM

Silly Jesus: You're arguing with established precedent. The training that the dog and officer go through is accepted by SCOTUS as sufficient for the handler to interpret the signals of the dog.


Meh. Things change.

Separate but equal were fine until it was shown that separate couldn't be equal.

Just wait until drug dogs are shown to have a higher false positive rate than polygraph.
 
2013-03-26 04:33:33 PM

Silly Jesus: pedrop357: Silly Jesus:  All the dog is doing is smelling something and essentially "saying", hey, I smell something. I don't see that as far off from a human officer seeing something and saying to his partner, "hey, look over there at that pot plant on the window sill."

Then the dog should have no problem explaining that on the stand.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x259]


BTW, if a cop could search a location based solely on the word of his human partner, would you support questioning that partner on the stand as to his/her qualifications and to determine accuracy of their senses?
 
2013-03-26 04:33:49 PM

Gdalescrboz: Woudl be more shocked if a liberal could come up with anything than anything the SCOTUS rules on.


wut
 
2013-03-26 04:35:41 PM

TwoHead: Silly Jesus: All the dog is doing is smelling something responding to the cue from his trainer and essentially "saying", hey, I smell something I'd like my reward. I don't see that as far off from a human officer seeing  not hearing something and saying to his partner, "Did you hear a scream?" and kicking in the door.


Excellent conspiracy theory.
 
2013-03-26 04:37:52 PM

jaytkay

Gdalescrboz: Woudl be more shocked if a liberal could come up with anything than anything the SCOTUS rules on.

wut


Reword. I would be more shocked if a was able liberal came up with a reason than how shocked I would be regarding any SCOTUS ruling.
 
2013-03-26 04:39:46 PM

pedrop357: Silly Jesus: Are you for or against bomb sniffing / drug / tracking dogs in general? Just curious. You seem to be somewhat of an expert on their supposed inaccuracy.

I'm against their use as justification to search without a warrant, as well as being against their "word" being valid in obtaining a warrant.

If a warrant has been obtained, use dogs, IR equipment, chemical analyzers, etc. all you want.  No warrant-no dog, IR, chemical analyzers.


So the dogs at airports sniffing for bombs are bad?

Also, just curious, what is your problem with them?  Is it that you believe that they are inaccurate and/or manipulated by their handler or is it that you think that the playing field should be level in the hide and seek criminal game...as in human senses vs. human senses?  Would this continue for as long as there are advances in technology?  Law enforcement can never use any tool other than their innate senses to aid them in looking for anything?  In 100 years whatever technology is built into our clothes / glasses / bodies would need to be turned off so that there is a level playing field in the criminal cat and mouse game?  Interesting to ponder.
 
2013-03-26 04:40:38 PM

pedrop357: Silly Jesus: pedrop357: Silly Jesus:  All the dog is doing is smelling something and essentially "saying", hey, I smell something. I don't see that as far off from a human officer seeing something and saying to his partner, "hey, look over there at that pot plant on the window sill."

Then the dog should have no problem explaining that on the stand.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x259]

You're the one who wants the dog's "word" treated the same as the word of a human partner.


SCOTUS has agreed that it can be treated as such.
 
2013-03-26 04:40:40 PM
Do things like restricting drink sizes, salt content, etc. count?

I'd say no. Mayor Bloomberg is the only person I know that wants to limit people's drink sizes. The rational people I know want to be given information on how much salt is in the food we buy, but as for limiting it in some way, no. As long as people are informed on their food choices, then they can choose whatever they want to buy.

How about supposedly "well intentioned" leftie campaigns against pornography stores, strip clubs?

What?! I think you're confusing "liberals" with "Baptists."

Then we have all the protecting people from themselves nonsense at hand when they rail against liquor stores, bars, menthol cigarettes, fatty foods, etc.

Again, I think you're thinking of Baptists or some other hard-core evangelical group. Show me some liberal group's website that is promoting the banning of liquor stores, bars or menthol cigarettes.

As for the "fatty foods" thing, the only thing I can think of is the banning of trans-fats, not the banning of fatty foods. People have successfully changed the diets of children in our public schools away from such fatty foods, but that was a parent thing, not a liberal thing.
 
2013-03-26 04:42:45 PM

pedrop357: Silly Jesus: pedrop357: Silly Jesus:  All the dog is doing is smelling something and essentially "saying", hey, I smell something. I don't see that as far off from a human officer seeing something and saying to his partner, "hey, look over there at that pot plant on the window sill."

Then the dog should have no problem explaining that on the stand.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x259]

BTW, if a cop could search a location based solely on the word of his human partner, would you support questioning that partner on the stand as to his/her qualifications and to determine accuracy of their senses?


Sure.  Because that "tool" is able to be questioned.  You can't question an intoxilyzer machine or a radar gun, but the "testimony" of those is accepted.  Not sure what you're getting at.
 
2013-03-26 04:44:49 PM

Silly Jesus: TwoHead: Silly Jesus: All the dog is doing is smelling something responding to the cue from his trainer and essentially "saying", hey, I smell something I'd like my reward. I don't see that as far off from a human officer seeing  not hearing something and saying to his partner, "Did you hear a scream?" and kicking in the door.

Excellent conspiracy theory.


It would a less compelling conspiracy if counting horses and the like weren't popular frauds.
 
2013-03-26 04:47:27 PM

Silly Jesus: Sure. Because that "tool" is able to be questioned. You can't question an intoxilyzer machine or a radar gun, but the "testimony" of those is accepted. Not sure what you're getting at.


You can't question them directly, but you can take them apart and deconstruct the hardware and (at least in some cases) decompile the software to see just how accurate the readings are.
 
2013-03-26 04:58:48 PM

Silly Jesus: pedrop357: Silly Jesus: stonicus: Silly Jesus: Brainsick: Silly Jesus: it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location

Officer(dog)
Officer/Dog
Officer Dog

A Dog isn't an officer, can't be reasoned with, can't use arbitration for defense, can't join the union.
(I know you get charged with assaulting an officer if you hurt one, but that's a loophole) A dog is not a person who has judgement and 'uses his senses'. A dog (and by extension, that dog's sensory organs) is a tool, is what I'm trying to say.

The officer's gun is a tool.  As are his handcuffs.  Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer.  I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.

He can take them with him, but he can't use them.

Yeah, that's what they are saying, which is silly.  If the dog's nose is a tool then so are the officer's eyes.  Maybe they should approach doors blindfolded.

Then the dog needs to the stand and explain how he/she knew that what they were smelling was marijuana, as well as explaining any official training they've received.

Not sure if serious.


I smell Irony.  With a human nose that's apparently every bit as good as a dog's.
 
2013-03-26 05:01:06 PM

pedrop357: Silly Jesus: Sure. Because that "tool" is able to be questioned. You can't question an intoxilyzer machine or a radar gun, but the "testimony" of those is accepted. Not sure what you're getting at.

You can't question them directly, but you can take them apart and deconstruct the hardware and (at least in some cases) decompile the software to see just how accurate the readings are.


The software for the intox machines is proprietary and defense attorneys can't analyze it.
 
2013-03-26 05:04:31 PM

Silly Jesus: TwoHead: Silly Jesus: All the dog is doing is smelling something responding to the cue from his trainer and essentially "saying", hey, I smell something I'd like my reward. I don't see that as far off from a human officer seeing  not hearing something and saying to his partner, "Did you hear a scream?" and kicking in the door.

Excellent conspiracy theory.


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-06/news/ct-met-canine-off ic ers-20110105_1_drug-sniffing-dogs-alex-rothacker-drug-dog

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/01/07/132738250/report-drug -s niffing-dogs-are-wrong-more-often-than-right

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/31/drug-dog-illinois-state-pol ic e_n_1376091.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-12/accuracy-of-police-sniffer-dog s- called-into-question/3726228

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/sniffer-dogs-get-it-wrong- fo ur-out-of-five-times-20111211-1oprv.html

You don't have to be ignorant on this subject.  The information is readily available.  I've shown you some and there is plenty more out there.  If you continue to be ignorant it is willful and that of course is the most odious ignorance of all.
 
2013-03-26 05:05:46 PM

Gdalescrboz: Reword. I would be more shocked if a was able liberal came up with a reason than how shocked I would be regarding any SCOTUS ruling.


wut?

You're typing on a phone, aren't you
 
2013-03-26 05:07:25 PM
Those of you shocked and all WTF that Scalia and Thomas wouldn't approve of this don't know what "conservative" means.  They're conservatives and strict constructionalist judges.  They're all for the government butting the hell out of most things.  These are the same guys who were in the minority on Kelo (the case where the government seized the old woman's house and property in New Haven, CT in order to give it to Glaxo on the basis that the extra tax revenue made it okay for the eminent domain exercise) and consistently rule in favor of personal privacy rights unless the government can present a compelling exception to such.

They're considering the Prop 8 challenge today.  I suspect their thoughts on the matter will have much less to do with 2 gay people getting married as it will with having the will of the voters of a state, via the proposition process, being overridden.  Californians amended their constitution via Prop 8...the ONLY way a constitution (state or federal) can be amended.  They're going to require one hell of a compelling argument to the contrary to tell the people of California that they can't do that.
 
2013-03-26 05:14:11 PM

Silly Jesus: pedrop357: Silly Jesus: Sure. Because that "tool" is able to be questioned. You can't question an intoxilyzer machine or a radar gun, but the "testimony" of those is accepted. Not sure what you're getting at.

You can't question them directly, but you can take them apart and deconstruct the hardware and (at least in some cases) decompile the software to see just how accurate the readings are.

The software for the intox machines is proprietary and defense attorneys can't analyze it.


Then that should be a good reason to toss the results.  In lieu of that, perhaps numerous double blind tests for accuracy.
 
2013-03-26 05:16:55 PM

craig328: They're considering the Prop 8 challenge today.  I suspect their thoughts on the matter will have much less to do with 2 gay people getting married as it will with having the will of the voters of a state, via the proposition process, being overridden.  Californians amended their constitution via Prop 8...the ONLY way a constitution (state or federal) can be amended.  They're going to require one hell of a compelling argument to the contrary to tell the people of California that they can't do that.


"Therefore, since the voters of California changed their Constitution to deny black people the right to not be slaves, we, the United States Supreme Court, find no reason to overrule the will of the voters of California."
 
2013-03-26 05:17:41 PM

Silly Jesus: The gun and cuffs are tools, but not detection devices; the dog is like an IR scanner or using his eyes to peer through the blinds. Those both require a warrant.
/Nice attempt at deflection
//and you even have a sycophant!

I don't get why a nose on a dog is a super duper detection device all of a sudden. It's not enhanced at all. You really think that a dog nose is closer to an IR scanner than a human eye?

Human eye - Meh, not a tool
IR Scanner - Super duper high tech device
Dog nose - Super duper high tech device


Read it again. If the officer uses his eyes to peer through the blinds, without knocking or alerting the homeowner to his presence, then yes, his eyes become a tool that he is using improperly. Dog nose is about 1000 times stronger than a human nose. That's why the cops use dogs. Do you need to lie down?
 
2013-03-26 05:18:40 PM

Lando Lincoln: craig328: They're considering the Prop 8 challenge today.  I suspect their thoughts on the matter will have much less to do with 2 gay people getting married as it will with having the will of the voters of a state, via the proposition process, being overridden.  Californians amended their constitution via Prop 8...the ONLY way a constitution (state or federal) can be amended.  They're going to require one hell of a compelling argument to the contrary to tell the people of California that they can't do that.

"Therefore, since the voters of California changed their Constitution to deny black people the right to not be slaves, we, the United States Supreme Court, find no reason to overrule the will of the voters of California."


Well the 13th amendment pretty much precludes that.

Now if you want to make the argument that the 14th forbids banning gay marriage, please do so.
 
2013-03-26 05:19:34 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.


Agreed. Apparently when Justice Alito looks at apples and oranges, all he sees are fruit.
 
2013-03-26 05:20:17 PM

Phinn: I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars:  What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals.  But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons?  Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional?  What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?


Gunpowder would presumably be one of the explosive substances the dog should alert to then, right?  Nitrates, another?

You're committing the same logic error many here do: the details aren't the issue.  Weed, explosives, KY jelly, whatever...the issue is that it's the government encroaching on your right to privacy.  Period.

I mean, suppose we had a stat that said that most murders were committed behind closed doors...ergo, all homes must now be equipped with cameras so the government can detect when a domestic dispute could evolve into murder and dispatch appropriate police forces to the scene to prevent such.  That's as laudable a goal as preventing your neighbor from brewing up some C4 or maybe something more effective like Sarin.

The price we pay to live in a free society is that there is the occasional asshole who abuses those freedoms.  This is essentially the same issue we're having vis-a-vis the gun control debate.  The issue isn't law abiding citizens having guns...it's the nutjobs having guns.  We refuse to curtail the individual nutjobs (aka: involuntarily commit their crazy asses) so occasional massacres are the price we unfortunately pay to allow them their freedoms.

It's not perfect but the alternative is no freedoms whatsoever.
 
2013-03-26 05:21:55 PM

pedrop357: Lando Lincoln: craig328: They're considering the Prop 8 challenge today.  I suspect their thoughts on the matter will have much less to do with 2 gay people getting married as it will with having the will of the voters of a state, via the proposition process, being overridden.  Californians amended their constitution via Prop 8...the ONLY way a constitution (state or federal) can be amended.  They're going to require one hell of a compelling argument to the contrary to tell the people of California that they can't do that.

"Therefore, since the voters of California changed their Constitution to deny black people the right to not be slaves, we, the United States Supreme Court, find no reason to overrule the will of the voters of California."

Well the 13th amendment pretty much precludes that.

Now if you want to make the argument that the 14th forbids banning gay marriage, please do so.


Thank you.  His argument was so full of the derp that I truly couldn't come up with a lucid enough response that wouldn't have triggered nearly every Fark filter.

Nice straw man tho Lando.  Sorry this development is surprising you.  It doesn't surprise me that it's surprising you though.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-03-26 05:27:05 PM

freeforever: 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.


Why do you find it necessary to inject race into this discussion?
 
2013-03-26 05:31:17 PM

Gdalescrboz: jaytkay

Gdalescrboz: Woudl be more shocked if a liberal could come up with anything than anything the SCOTUS rules on.

wut

Reword. I would be more shocked if a was able liberal came up with a reason than how shocked I would be regarding any SCOTUS ruling.


Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2013-03-26 05:34:27 PM

pedrop357: Well the 13th amendment pretty much precludes that.

Now if you want to make the argument that the 14th forbids banning gay marriage, please do so.


Yes, that's exactly what I was arguing. States can't just go and void the 13th amendment, so why can states void the 14th?
 
2013-03-26 05:48:46 PM

craig328: Californians amended their constitution via Prop 8...the ONLY way a constitution (state or federal) can be amended.


Are you saying a popular vote is needed to amend a constitution? Because that is not correct.

The US Constitution is amended by Congress and the state legislatures.

Each state has its own rules regarding amendments and revisions to its constitution.
 
2013-03-26 06:03:55 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.


It's the Mrs. Kravitz defense... ABNER!! ABNEEEEEER!!! You'll never guess what I saw while innocently peeking through the blinds!
 
2013-03-26 06:29:53 PM

A Terrible Human: Finally a decent decision from SCOTUS!


Don't get too excited.

http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=160071

Clapper v. Amnesty International

You have no standing to sue to government for wiretapping you without a warrant.
 
2013-03-26 06:32:33 PM
911. What is your emergency? Yes, this is officer dog.

blog.miodestino.com
 
2013-03-26 06:47:51 PM

Phinn: I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars:  What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals.  But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons?  Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional?  What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?


Come back with a warrant? I never claimed to be a scholar, but that seems like a no brainer to me.
 
2013-03-26 06:55:09 PM

TwoHead: Silly Jesus: TwoHead: Silly Jesus: All the dog is doing is smelling something responding to the cue from his trainer and essentially "saying", hey, I smell something I'd like my reward. I don't see that as far off from a human officer seeing  not hearing something and saying to his partner, "Did you hear a scream?" and kicking in the door.

Excellent conspiracy theory.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-06/news/ct-met-canine-off ic ers-20110105_1_drug-sniffing-dogs-alex-rothacker-drug-dog

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/01/07/132738250/report-drug -s niffing-dogs-are-wrong-more-often-than-right

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/31/drug-dog-illinois-state-pol ic e_n_1376091.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-12/accuracy-of-police-sniffer-dog s- called-into-question/3726228

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/sniffer-dogs-get-it-wrong- fo ur-out-of-five-times-20111211-1oprv.html

You don't have to be ignorant on this subject.  The information is readily available.  I've shown you some and there is plenty more out there.  If you continue to be ignorant it is willful and that of course is the most odious ignorance of all.


There are just as many sources pointing in the opposite direction.  I'll admit it's not clear cut...but that means it's not clear cut either way.  You'll continue to assume the worst, most conspiratorial angle, and I won't.
 
2013-03-26 06:57:10 PM

Brainsick: Silly Jesus: The gun and cuffs are tools, but not detection devices; the dog is like an IR scanner or using his eyes to peer through the blinds. Those both require a warrant.
/Nice attempt at deflection
//and you even have a sycophant!

I don't get why a nose on a dog is a super duper detection device all of a sudden. It's not enhanced at all. You really think that a dog nose is closer to an IR scanner than a human eye?

Human eye - Meh, not a tool
IR Scanner - Super duper high tech device
Dog nose - Super duper high tech device

Read it again. If the officer uses his eyes to peer through the blinds, without knocking or alerting the homeowner to his presence, then yes, his eyes become a tool that he is using improperly. Dog nose is about 1000 times stronger than a human nose. That's why the cops use dogs. Do you need to lie down?


Um, OK.  You missed my point entirely.  Good effort though.
 
2013-03-26 07:00:17 PM

TinyFist: Phinn: I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars:  What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals.  But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons?  Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional?  What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?

Come back with a warrant? I never claimed to be a scholar, but that seems like a no brainer to me.


You can't get a warrant if the search (dog smelling public air) was unconstitutional.  That's the entire point of this ruling and this discussion.  A scholar you are not.
 
2013-03-26 07:11:37 PM
Silly Jesus:
There are just as many sources pointing in the opposite direction.  I'll admit it's not clear cut...but that means it's not clear cut either way.  You'll continue to assume the worst, most conspiratorial angle, and I won't.

No. You have chosen poorly, but I'm sure that isn't uncommon.

Have a nice life.
 
2013-03-26 07:12:48 PM

TwoHead: Silly Jesus:
There are just as many sources pointing in the opposite direction.  I'll admit it's not clear cut...but that means it's not clear cut either way.  You'll continue to assume the worst, most conspiratorial angle, and I won't.

No. You have chosen poorly, but I'm sure that isn't uncommon.

Have a nice life.


You're kinda high strung, aren't ya?
 
2013-03-26 07:15:24 PM

Wendy's Chili: 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.


For Thomas, though, that case didn't have anything to do with law enforcement.  Thomas is of the position that a school acts in loco parentis, and thus a search by a principal (even one of a public school) should not be treated as an act of government, but an act of parental authority.  So since the Fourth Amendment doesn't restrict parental searches of the minors in their care, it doesn't limit principals.  Same thing on the First Amendment (like the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case) - if a parent can punish his child for an expression, then a school can, in Thomas's view.  (Note this was the way US law generally handled school matters until the 1960s; Thomas didn't invent this view out of thin air.)

On the other hand, police sniffer dogs (or police using thermal imagers, per Kyllo) are government actors, and so the Constitution's restrictions on the government indisputably apply.  On police matters, Thomas tends to be a bit more libertarian then Scalia.
 
2013-03-26 07:20:09 PM

jaytkay: craig328: Californians amended their constitution via Prop 8...the ONLY way a constitution (state or federal) can be amended.

Are you saying a popular vote is needed to amend a constitution? Because that is not correct.

The US Constitution is amended by Congress and the state legislatures.

Each state has its own rules regarding amendments and revisions to its constitution.


There are basically five different ways in Florida alone.
 
2013-03-26 07:28:19 PM

Onkel Buck: Lando Lincoln: Onkel Buck: Lando Lincoln: Onkel Buck: C'mon just call him an Uncle Tom already, you know you want too.

His race has nothing to do with anything.

Now why don't you put up some information about how he's an actual good judge.

He pisses you off, thats enough for me

Yeah, that's pretty much the only reason why Republicans continue to get votes. "Cuz they piss off the libs!"

You are a credit to your party.

Not affiliated, but you sure are easy to annoy, its almost like you're nothing but raw emotion.


Some people sadly just can't see past their bigotry at a black man in the Supreme Court.
 
2013-03-26 07:29:02 PM

craig328: pedrop357: Lando Lincoln: craig328: They're considering the Prop 8 challenge today.  I suspect their thoughts on the matter will have much less to do with 2 gay people getting married as it will with having the will of the voters of a state, via the proposition process, being overridden.  Californians amended their constitution via Prop 8...the ONLY way a constitution (state or federal) can be amended.  They're going to require one hell of a compelling argument to the contrary to tell the people of California that they can't do that.

"Therefore, since the voters of California changed their Constitution to deny black people the right to not be slaves, we, the United States Supreme Court, find no reason to overrule the will of the voters of California."

Well the 13th amendment pretty much precludes that.

Now if you want to make the argument that the 14th forbids banning gay marriage, please do so.

Thank you.  His argument was so full of the derp that I truly couldn't come up with a lucid enough response that wouldn't have triggered nearly every Fark filter.

Nice straw man tho Lando.  Sorry this development is surprising you.  It doesn't surprise me that it's surprising you though.


You've apparently never heard of Evans v Romer either. Wow.

I find your ignorance contemptible enough, but your affected show of self-pleasure makes me want to shower.
 
2013-03-26 07:32:26 PM

jigger: A Terrible Human: Finally a decent decision from SCOTUS!

Don't get too excited.

http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=160071

Clapper v. Amnesty International

You have no standing to sue to government for wiretapping you without a warrant.


I had no idea this was the subject of a court case.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-26 07:36:44 PM

Silly Jesus: TinyFist: Phinn: I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars:  What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals.  But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons?  Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional?  What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?

Come back with a warrant? I never claimed to be a scholar, but that seems like a no brainer to me.

You can't get a warrant if the search (dog smelling public air) was unconstitutional.  That's the entire point of this ruling and this discussion.  A scholar you are not.


If you think the point of the ruling concerns a "dog smelling public air," you're not in a position to condescend.
 
2013-03-26 07:44:56 PM

Salt Lick Steady: Silly Jesus: TinyFist: Phinn: I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars:  What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals.  But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons?  Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional?  What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?

Come back with a warrant? I never claimed to be a scholar, but that seems like a no brainer to me.

You can't get a warrant if the search (dog smelling public air) was unconstitutional.  That's the entire point of this ruling and this discussion.  A scholar you are not.

If you think the point of the ruling concerns a "dog smelling public air," you're not in a position to condescend.


I was referring to his example.  I do understand that they decided that the air on someone's front porch is private air.
 
2013-03-26 07:48:31 PM

Silly Jesus: Salt Lick Steady: Silly Jesus: TinyFist: Phinn: I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars:  What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals.  But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons?  Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional?  What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?

Come back with a warrant? I never claimed to be a scholar, but that seems like a no brainer to me.

You can't get a warrant if the search (dog smelling public air) was unconstitutional.  That's the entire point of this ruling and this discussion.  A scholar you are not.

If you think the point of the ruling concerns a "dog smelling public air," you're not in a position to condescend.

I was referring to his example.  I do understand that they decided that the air on someone's front porch is private air.


Way to double down
 
2013-03-26 08:02:32 PM

Wendy's Chili: 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.


Thomas is of the firmly held, and oft-stated (by himself), belief that minors have next to *zero* civil rights at all.
 
2013-03-26 08:48:11 PM

jjorsett: 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.


Exactly, and that's why I had a little glimmer of hope that the defendant would win on this one. It would be common sense to rule in favor of the cops if they'd detected it themselves through smell or sight, but trained dogs are tools utilized because their senses are better than humans (in some respects). Because they trespassed and utilized a tool on the premises of an otherwise innocent person (not having enough for a warrant in the first place), that's why he should be protected under illegal search and seizure.
 
2013-03-26 09:06:28 PM

Mad_Radhu: AverageAmericanGuy: 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.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.


LOL... see I was gonna ask when Dubya went liberal, but Obama's magic time machine works, too. :D
 
2013-03-26 09:06:43 PM

Salt Lick Steady: You've apparently never heard of Evans v Romer either. Wow.

I find your ignorance contemptible enough, but your affected show of self-pleasure makes me want to shower.


No, I'll admit I'm not the instant Google expert that you seem to be but to humor you, I had a glance.

I'll go ahead and understand that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground if you think a law explicitly forbidding governmental or judicial action to establish sexual preference as a protected 14th Amendment class is the same as the citizens of a state, via referendum, creating a legal definition of marriage.  You'll think they're the same when the only thing comparable about them is the subject the actions surround (homosexual marriage).  Congrats on your misplaced self-congratulatory contempt.  I'm sure it nicely compliments your other likely odious personality flaws making you into the kind of person people like to measure distances from.  You certainly manage to convey those qualities effectively enough in your scribbling anyway.

So, how about you go hump someone else's leg for awhile because I think we're done here.
 
2013-03-26 09:22:39 PM

craig328: ..is the same as the citizens of a state, via referendum, creating a legal definition of marriage.


...and thus, excluding certain groups from rights that others may have based on that new definition.

It's like California declaring that American citizens of Mexican decent aren't really people, so SHAZAM! They don't have any rights. Ha ha! Sucks to be you! If you want to be treated like a person, then don't be have filthy Mexican ancestors next time!
 
2013-03-26 09:32:33 PM
Scalia might be a nut on many issues, but he actually pretty reasonable on Fourth Amendment protections against search.
 
2013-03-26 10:08:21 PM
Scalia and Thomas
sitting in a tree
Kay eye ess ess eye en gee!
 
2013-03-26 10:44:28 PM

craig328: Those of you shocked and all WTF that Scalia and Thomas wouldn't approve of this don't know what "conservative" means.  They're conservatives and strict constructionalist judges.  They're all for the government butting the hell out of most things.  These are the same guys who were in the minority on Kelo (the case where the government seized the old woman's house and property in New Haven, CT in order to give it to Glaxo on the basis that the extra tax revenue made it okay for the eminent domain exercise) and consistently rule in favor of personal privacy rights unless the government can present a compelling exception to such.

They're considering the Prop 8 challenge today.  I suspect their thoughts on the matter will have much less to do with 2 gay people getting married as it will with having the will of the voters of a state, via the proposition process, being overridden.  Californians amended their constitution via Prop 8...the ONLY way a constitution (state or federal) can be amended.  They're going to require one hell of a compelling argument to the contrary to tell the people of California that they can't do that.


I know you're a birther, but:
How do you explain them thinking that the Government has the power to incarcerate a married couple if it can be proven then had oral sex in their own bedroom?
 
2013-03-26 10:48:31 PM

elvindeath: 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.


An American citizen who betrayed his country, fled it to join his new friends, and actively plotted against his former home country to cause death and terror. That's a FAAAAARRRRRRRR cry from this ruling, and from your paranoid conspiracy theories of Obama using that power to launch missiles at elementary schools in Delaware because they don't teach what he thinks they should.
 
2013-03-26 10:56:44 PM

Satanic_Hamster: craig328: Those of you shocked and all WTF that Scalia and Thomas wouldn't approve of this don't know what "conservative" means.  They're conservatives and strict constructionalist judges.  They're all for the government butting the hell out of most things.  These are the same guys who were in the minority on Kelo (the case where the government seized the old woman's house and property in New Haven, CT in order to give it to Glaxo on the basis that the extra tax revenue made it okay for the eminent domain exercise) and consistently rule in favor of personal privacy rights unless the government can present a compelling exception to such.

They're considering the Prop 8 challenge today.  I suspect their thoughts on the matter will have much less to do with 2 gay people getting married as it will with having the will of the voters of a state, via the proposition process, being overridden.  Californians amended their constitution via Prop 8...the ONLY way a constitution (state or federal) can be amended.  They're going to require one hell of a compelling argument to the contrary to tell the people of California that they can't do that.

I know you're a birther, but:
How do you explain them thinking that the Government has the power to incarcerate a married couple if it can be proven then had oral sex in their own bedroom?



This may come as a shock, but oral sex usually does not lead to births.


/Swallow
 
2013-03-26 10:59:47 PM

craig328: Salt Lick Steady: You've apparently never heard of Evans v Romer either. Wow.

I find your ignorance contemptible enough, but your affected show of self-pleasure makes me want to shower.

No, I'll admit I'm not the instant Google expert that you seem to be but to humor you, I had a glance.

I'll go ahead and understand that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground if you think a law explicitly forbidding governmental or judicial action to establish sexual preference as a protected 14th Amendment class is the same as the citizens of a state, via referendum, creating a legal definition of marriage.  You'll think they're the same when the only thing comparable about them is the subject the actions surround (homosexual marriage).  Congrats on your misplaced self-congratulatory contempt.  I'm sure it nicely compliments your other likely odious personality flaws making you into the kind of person people like to measure distances from.  You certainly manage to convey those qualities effectively enough in your scribbling anyway.

So, how about you go hump someone else's leg for awhile because I think we're done here.


This is the time you may want to redefine your constitution.
 
2013-03-26 11:10:02 PM

muck4doo: Really? Now we are supposed to trust in officer dog? My tortoise wants to bust a few people too.


25.media.tumblr.com

"Spike, take a bite of your leaf if you smell drugs on the premises."
*munch munch*
"You are under arrest."
 
2013-03-26 11:13:52 PM

Amos Quito: This may come as a shock, but oral sex usually does not lead to births.


/Swallow


I'm not aware of anyone who has claimed otherwise.  Or are you of the "conservative" thought that things that the Government should have the power to mandate that sex only be used for creation?
 
2013-03-26 11:17:23 PM
Consistant, strict constructionalist judges are what you want if you like individual freedom and respect of your rights.  if you want tyranny, keep supporting idiot 'living document' progressives.
 
2013-03-26 11:22:08 PM

craig328: pedrop357: Lando Lincoln: craig328: They're considering the Prop 8 challenge today.  I suspect their thoughts on the matter will have much less to do with 2 gay people getting married as it will with having the will of the voters of a state, via the proposition process, being overridden.  Californians amended their constitution via Prop 8...the ONLY way a constitution (state or federal) can be amended.  They're going to require one hell of a compelling argument to the contrary to tell the people of California that they can't do that.

"Therefore, since the voters of California changed their Constitution to deny black people the right to not be slaves, we, the United States Supreme Court, find no reason to overrule the will of the voters of California."

Well the 13th amendment pretty much precludes that.

Now if you want to make the argument that the 14th forbids banning gay marriage, please do so.

Thank you.  His argument was so full of the derp that I truly couldn't come up with a lucid enough response that wouldn't have triggered nearly every Fark filter.

Nice straw man tho Lando.  Sorry this development is surprising you.  It doesn't surprise me that it's surprising you though.


How about "America was founded on the idea that all people are equal, and denying gays the right to marry because Christians are idiots causes some people to not be treated equally, which goes against the principles America was founded upon"?

I can also mention "Tyranny of the majority".
 
2013-03-26 11:26:03 PM

Salt Lick Steady: Silly Jesus: Salt Lick Steady: Silly Jesus: TinyFist: Phinn: I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars:  What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals.  But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons?  Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional?  What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?

Come back with a warrant? I never claimed to be a scholar, but that seems like a no brainer to me.

You can't get a warrant if the search (dog smelling public air) was unconstitutional.  That's the entire point of this ruling and this discussion.  A scholar you are not.

If you think the point of the ruling concerns a "dog smelling public air," you're not in a position to condescend.

I was referring to his example.  I do understand that they decided that the air on someone's front porch is private air.

Way to double down


Silly Jesus is a professional troll. He goes into threads for the sole purpose of arguing for the opposite side of common sense and facts.
 
2013-03-26 11:40:14 PM
"...179 live marijuana plants from the house, with an estimated street value of more than $700,000."

Cop Math™
 
2013-03-26 11:44:32 PM

incrdbil: Consistant, strict constructionalist judges are what you want if you like individual freedom and respect of your rights.  if you want tyranny, keep supporting idiot 'living document' progressives.


So, in your mind, the government has the power to legislate what sexual acts two married people can do to each other in the privacy of their own bedroom?   You think jailing married couples for performing oral sex on each other is a mark of freedom and respect of peoples rights?   You think blow jobs = tyranny?

Also, I wish your mother was better at tyranny.
 
2013-03-27 12:01:34 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: This may come as a shock, but oral sex usually does not lead to births.


/Swallow

I'm not aware of anyone who has claimed otherwise.  Or are you of the "conservative" thought that things that the Government should have the power to mandate that sex only be used for creation?


YOU SAID:

Satanic_Hamster:
I know you're a birther, but:
How do you explain them thinking that the Government has the power to incarcerate a married couple if it can be proven then had oral sex in their own bedroom?



Sorry. I was ridiculing you for predicating your senseless statement with the "birther" accusation.

Now go play on your Satanic Exercise Wheel.

www.deviltronics.com
 
2013-03-27 12:12:56 AM
HOLY shiat!

A little bit of faith restored in the US justice system.  Now, if we could just get legal online poker......
 
2013-03-27 12:17:19 AM

Amos Quito: Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: This may come as a shock, but oral sex usually does not lead to births.


/Swallow

I'm not aware of anyone who has claimed otherwise.  Or are you of the "conservative" thought that things that the Government should have the power to mandate that sex only be used for creation?

YOU SAID:

Satanic_Hamster: I know you're a birther, but:
How do you explain them thinking that the Government has the power to incarcerate a married couple if it can be proven then had oral sex in their own bedroom?


Sorry. I was ridiculing you for predicating your senseless statement with the "birther" accusation.

Now go play on your Satanic Exercise Wheel.

[www.deviltronics.com image 250x250]


craig328 is a birther.  It's not an accusation, it's a statement of fact and should accurately label the veracity of all his beliefs.
 
2013-03-27 12:24:02 AM

incrdbil: Consistant, strict constructionalist judges are what you want if you like individual freedom and respect of your rights.  if you want tyranny, keep supporting idiot 'living document' progressives.


Ahh, the Party of Stupid representative has awoken.
 
2013-03-27 12:25:41 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: This may come as a shock, but oral sex usually does not lead to births.


/Swallow

I'm not aware of anyone who has claimed otherwise.  Or are you of the "conservative" thought that things that the Government should have the power to mandate that sex only be used for creation?

YOU SAID:

Satanic_Hamster: I know you're a birther, but:
How do you explain them thinking that the Government has the power to incarcerate a married couple if it can be proven then had oral sex in their own bedroom?


Sorry. I was ridiculing you for predicating your senseless statement with the "birther" accusation.

Now go play on your Satanic Exercise Wheel.

[www.deviltronics.com image 250x250]

craig328 is a birther.  It's not an accusation, it's a statement of fact and should accurately label the veracity of all his beliefs.


Aw, come on, plenty of insane people believe a couple of things that are correct
 
2013-03-27 12:33:17 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: This may come as a shock, but oral sex usually does not lead to births.


/Swallow

I'm not aware of anyone who has claimed otherwise.  Or are you of the "conservative" thought that things that the Government should have the power to mandate that sex only be used for creation?

YOU SAID:

Satanic_Hamster: I know you're a birther, but:
How do you explain them thinking that the Government has the power to incarcerate a married couple if it can be proven then had oral sex in their own bedroom?


Sorry. I was ridiculing you for predicating your senseless statement with the "birther" accusation.

Now go play on your Satanic Exercise Wheel.

[www.deviltronics.com image 250x250]

craig328 is a birther.  It's not an accusation, it's a statement of fact and should accurately label the veracity of all his beliefs.



Can you show me where, in the US, TODAY, married couples can be "incarcerated" for having "oral sex in their own bedroom", as you stated above?

I'll judge the validity of your "birther" accusation based on your reply.
 
2013-03-27 12:34:52 AM

Satanic_Hamster: craig328 is a birther.  It's not an accusation, it's a statement of fact and should accurately label the veracity of all his beliefs.


Indeed?  Hm.  That's news to me.

You've tried the "birther" thing twice whilst posing your ridiculous non-sequitur question.  I get that you don't appear to be able to string together two coherent thoughts consecutively but your original idiotic question (How do you explain them thinking that the Government has the power to incarcerate a married couple if it can be proven then had oral sex in their own bedroom?) is your own strawman fantasy...not mine.  In fact, your "question" has so little to do with reality that I'd venture to guess that since it'd be too difficult to actually imagine someone being as terminally stupid as you're portraying yourself to be that you're actually trolling here.

That said, you're trying too hard and aren't nearly either subtle enough or clever enough to pull it off.  Seriously, it's not working.  Go bother someone else.
 
2013-03-27 12:38:43 AM

ghare: craig328 is a birther. It's not an accusation, it's a statement of fact and should accurately label the veracity of all his beliefs.

Aw, come on, plenty of insane people believe a couple of things that are correct



Wow, so you're a birther, ghare?


/ghare farkied as "birther"
//Will be accused of such
///In all subsequent references


Hey Satanic_Hamster, are you going to rip on this guy with me, or what?
 
2013-03-27 12:44:24 AM

Salt Lick Steady: craig328: Salt Lick Steady: You've apparently never heard of Evans v Romer either. Wow.

I find your ignorance contemptible enough, but your affected show of self-pleasure makes me want to shower.

No, I'll admit I'm not the instant Google expert that you seem to be but to humor you, I had a glance.

I'll go ahead and understand that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground if you think a law explicitly forbidding governmental or judicial action to establish sexual preference as a protected 14th Amendment class is the same as the citizens of a state, via referendum, creating a legal definition of marriage.  You'll think they're the same when the only thing comparable about them is the subject the actions surround (homosexual marriage).  Congrats on your misplaced self-congratulatory contempt.  I'm sure it nicely compliments your other likely odious personality flaws making you into the kind of person people like to measure distances from.  You certainly manage to convey those qualities effectively enough in your scribbling anyway.

So, how about you go hump someone else's leg for awhile because I think we're done here.

This is the time you may want to redefine your constitution.


So you're done then?  I mean, what...that's the extent of your debate?  Toss out some bombast about being contemptuous of contrary opinions hoping to address someone who can't detect that you're an intellectual flyspeck?

I'm fairly well versed in "my Constitution", your advice not withstanding.  I'm also well aware of the legal difference between commission and omission which is pretty much what your Google-fu'd quoted case from Colorado was all about...and that that case has practically zero relevance to Prop 8 in the points of law which the SCOTUS will rightfully be considering.

But while we're discussing the Constitution here, how about you go educate yourself on what it is that constitutes a "protected class" under the 14th Amendment and why it might be a little problematic granting such status to a group based solely on a verbally expressed preference.  I mean, once you discover what a protected class is, expand your horizons a little and discover the groups that currently enjoy that status and be amazed to further discover that practically none of them are due to the members of that class voluntarily proclaiming their status.

I'm sure that'll keep you away from the paint chips and paste jar for awhile.
 
2013-03-27 12:45:47 AM

ghare: incrdbil: Consistant, strict constructionalist judges are what you want if you like individual freedom and respect of your rights.  if you want tyranny, keep supporting idiot 'living document' progressives.

Ahh, the Party of Stupid representative has awoken.


I've never been a supporter of the "living document" philosophy.  Every time I've heard someone use the term it is in relation to interpretation of the Constitution, and not in relation to amending.
 
2013-03-27 12:59:50 AM

Amos Quito: Can you show me where, in the US, TODAY, married couples can be "incarcerated" for having "oral sex in their own bedroom", as you stated above?

I'll judge the validity of your "birther" accusation based on your reply.


No, but your champions of Conservative Tradtionalist Judges, Scalia and Thomas, are on record as thinking that the government does and should have the power to do so.
 
2013-03-27 01:19:41 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: Can you show me where, in the US, TODAY, married couples can be "incarcerated" for having "oral sex in their own bedroom", as you stated above?

I'll judge the validity of your "birther" accusation based on your reply.

No, but your champions of Conservative Tradtionalist Judges, Scalia and Thomas, are on record as thinking that the government does and should have the power to do so.


Bullshiat.  What Scalia has said, and rightfully so, is that "I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible - murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals - and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of 'animus' at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct".  Unfortunately, he's absolutely correct.  We have laws against murder, polygamy, bestiality and cruelty to animals.  Those laws exist because the community and/or society that proposed and adopted those laws did so on the basis of conduct reprehensible to the majority.

You may not like it and may not agree but just as we tell people "you can have sexual relations...you just can't have them with dogs" we (in the case of the instance before the court, the people of California) can also figuratively say "you can get married...you just can't get married to someone of the same gender as you".  California has even gone to the extent of crafting a civil union law (prior to Prop 8) which is pretty much the equivalent to marriage at the state level.  Prop 8 only happened when Gavin Newsome decided to tell the rest of the state to fark off and started issuing marriage licenses illegally in San Francisco in violation of the law.  That pissed people off and that's why there was even a Prop 8 and why the majority of voters in California voted for it.
 
2013-03-27 01:23:26 AM

craig328: Salt Lick Steady: craig328: Salt Lick Steady: You've apparently never heard of Evans v Romer either. Wow.

I find your ignorance contemptible enough, but your affected show of self-pleasure makes me want to shower.

No, I'll admit I'm not the instant Google expert that you seem to be but to humor you, I had a glance.

I'll go ahead and understand that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground if you think a law explicitly forbidding governmental or judicial action to establish sexual preference as a protected 14th Amendment class is the same as the citizens of a state, via referendum, creating a legal definition of marriage.  You'll think they're the same when the only thing comparable about them is the subject the actions surround (homosexual marriage).  Congrats on your misplaced self-congratulatory contempt.  I'm sure it nicely compliments your other likely odious personality flaws making you into the kind of person people like to measure distances from.  You certainly manage to convey those qualities effectively enough in your scribbling anyway.

So, how about you go hump someone else's leg for awhile because I think we're done here.

This is the time you may want to redefine your constitution.

So you're done then?  I mean, what...that's the extent of your debate?  Toss out some bombast about being contemptuous of contrary opinions hoping to address someone who can't detect that you're an intellectual flyspeck?

I'm fairly well versed in "my Constitution", your advice not withstanding.  I'm also well aware of the legal difference between commission and omission which is pretty much what your Google-fu'd quoted case from Colorado was all about...and that that case has practically zero relevance to Prop 8 in the points of law which the SCOTUS will rightfully be considering.

But while we're discussing the Constitution here, how about you go educate yourself on what it is that constitutes a "protected class" under the 14th Amendment and why it might be a l ...


We wouldn't need to label people in a "protected class" if we would stop denying the rights and freedoms this country was founded on to people some consider "Evil" and "Destructive" because they happen to be attracted to the same sex more than the opposite sex.
 
2013-03-27 01:29:13 AM

craig328: Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: Can you show me where, in the US, TODAY, married couples can be "incarcerated" for having "oral sex in their own bedroom", as you stated above?

I'll judge the validity of your "birther" accusation based on your reply.

No, but your champions of Conservative Tradtionalist Judges, Scalia and Thomas, are on record as thinking that the government does and should have the power to do so.

Bullshiat.  What Scalia has said, and rightfully so, is that "I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible - murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals - and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of 'animus' at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct".  Unfortunately, he's absolutely correct.  We have laws against murder, polygamy, bestiality and cruelty to animals.  Those laws exist because the community and/or society that proposed and adopted those laws did so on the basis of conduct reprehensible to the majority.

You may not like it and may not agree but just as we tell people "you can have sexual relations...you just can't have them with dogs" we (in the case of the instance before the court, the people of California) can also figuratively say "you can get married...you just can't get married to someone of the same gender as you".  California has even gone to the extent of crafting a civil union law (prior to Prop 8) which is pretty much the equivalent to marriage at the state level.  Prop 8 only happened when Gavin Newsome decided to tell the rest of the state to fark off and started issuing marriage licenses illegally in San Francisco in violation of the law.  That pissed people off and that's why there was even a Prop 8 and why the majority of voters in California voted for it.


"Just as you can't have sexual relations with animals who cannot give consent and are not human beings, we won't allow you to marry the consenting human being that loves you and you love in return. We the people who have all the rights we want decide what rights you're allowed to have. Separate but equal worked fine for blacks, it'll work fine for you as well. You see, you can marry whoever you want IF THEY'RE THE SAME GENDER AS YOU, just like once you could marry anyone you wanted AS LONG AS THEY WERE THE SAME SKIN COLOR AS YOU. Perhaps one day we'll also decide that you can marry whoever you want "IF THEY'RE THE SAME HEIGHT AS YOU / HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF FRECKLES AS YOU / HAVE THE SAME MISSING LIMBS AS YOU / ARE THE SAME IQ AS YOU. Why do you all keep demanding to be given special rights and freedoms? Don't you know marriage isn't a right in America? We gave you "civil unions", why can't you be perfectly happy with that and stop tormenting the poor Christians whose special word you're trying to mock and destroy by your very existence?"
 
2013-03-27 01:32:25 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: Can you show me where, in the US, TODAY, married couples can be "incarcerated" for having "oral sex in their own bedroom", as you stated above?

I'll judge the validity of your "birther" accusation based on your reply.



Satanic_Hamster: No, but your champions of Conservative Tradtionalist Judges, Scalia and Thomas, are on record as thinking that the government does and should have the power to do so.


1. These are not my "champions"
2. [Citation needed]
3. The validity of your "birther"accusation has been judged, and has been found wanting
 
2013-03-27 01:38:28 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: craig328: Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: Can you show me where, in the US, TODAY, married couples can be "incarcerated" for having "oral sex in their own bedroom", as you stated above?

I'll judge the validity of your "birther" accusation based on your reply.

No, but your champions of Conservative Tradtionalist Judges, Scalia and Thomas, are on record as thinking that the government does and should have the power to do so.

Bullshiat.  What Scalia has said, and rightfully so, is that "I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible - murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals - and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of 'animus' at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct".  Unfortunately, he's absolutely correct.  We have laws against murder, polygamy, bestiality and cruelty to animals.  Those laws exist because the community and/or society that proposed and adopted those laws did so on the basis of conduct reprehensible to the majority.

You may not like it and may not agree but just as we tell people "you can have sexual relations...you just can't have them with dogs" we (in the case of the instance before the court, the people of California) can also figuratively say "you can get married...you just can't get married to someone of the same gender as you".  California has even gone to the extent of crafting a civil union law (prior to Prop 8) which is pretty much the equivalent to marriage at the state level.  Prop 8 only happened when Gavin Newsome decided to tell the rest of the state to fark off and started issuing marriage licenses illegally in San Francisco in violation of the law.  That pissed people off and that's why there was even a Prop 8 and why the majority of voters in California voted for it.

"Just as you can't have sexual relations with animals who cannot give consent and are not human beings, we won't allow you to marry the consenting human being that loves you an ...


What's that smell?
 
2013-03-27 01:43:19 AM

Amos Quito: Keizer_Ghidorah: craig328: Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: Can you show me where, in the US, TODAY, married couples can be "incarcerated" for having "oral sex in their own bedroom", as you stated above?

I'll judge the validity of your "birther" accusation based on your reply.

No, but your champions of Conservative Tradtionalist Judges, Scalia and Thomas, are on record as thinking that the government does and should have the power to do so.

Bullshiat.  What Scalia has said, and rightfully so, is that "I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible - murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals - and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of 'animus' at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct".  Unfortunately, he's absolutely correct.  We have laws against murder, polygamy, bestiality and cruelty to animals.  Those laws exist because the community and/or society that proposed and adopted those laws did so on the basis of conduct reprehensible to the majority.

You may not like it and may not agree but just as we tell people "you can have sexual relations...you just can't have them with dogs" we (in the case of the instance before the court, the people of California) can also figuratively say "you can get married...you just can't get married to someone of the same gender as you".  California has even gone to the extent of crafting a civil union law (prior to Prop 8) which is pretty much the equivalent to marriage at the state level.  Prop 8 only happened when Gavin Newsome decided to tell the rest of the state to fark off and started issuing marriage licenses illegally in San Francisco in violation of the law.  That pissed people off and that's why there was even a Prop 8 and why the majority of voters in California voted for it.

"Just as you can't have sexual relations with animals who cannot give consent and are not human beings, we won't allow you to marry the consenting human being ...


What's that smell?

"Bullshiat, herp dee derp".

Sorry I don't agree with you or anyone else who says that it's right to deny people the basic rights and freedoms everyone else gets because Christians and retards hate them for loving people of the same gender. Comparing it to bestiality was also quite the dipshiat move.
 
2013-03-27 08:50:49 AM

craig328: Those laws exist because the community and/or society that proposed and adopted those laws did so on the basis of conduct reprehensible to the majority.


Florida didn't outlaw bestiality until last year.
 
2013-03-27 09:02:38 AM

craig328: Bullshiat. What Scalia has said, and rightfully so, is that "I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible - murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals - and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of 'animus' at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct". Unfortunately, he's absolutely correct. We have laws against murder, polygamy, bestiality and cruelty to animals. Those laws exist because the community and/or society that proposed and adopted those laws did so on the basis of conduct reprehensible to the majority.

You may not like it and may not agree but just as we tell people "you can have sexual relations...you just can't have them with dogs" we (in the case of the instance before the court, the people of California) can also figuratively say "you can get married...you just can't get married to someone of the same gender as you". California has even gone to the extent of crafting a civil union law (prior to Prop 8) which is pretty much the equivalent to marriage at the state level. Prop 8 only happened when Gavin Newsome decided to tell the rest of the state to fark off and started issuing marriage licenses illegally in San Francisco in violation of the law. That pissed people off and that's why there was even a Prop 8 and why the majority of voters in California voted for it.


What, exactly, is bullshiat?  Are you forgetting the sodomy ruling from a few years back?  The case of Texas Vs. Anal Sex?
 
2013-03-27 09:09:06 AM

Salt Lick Steady: craig328: Those laws exist because the community and/or society that proposed and adopted those laws did so on the basis of conduct reprehensible to the majority.

craig328: Salt Lick Steady: craig328: Salt Lick Steady: You've apparently never heard of Evans v Romer either. Wow.

I find your ignorance contemptible enough, but your affected show of self-pleasure makes me want to shower.

No, I'll admit I'm not the instant Google expert that you seem to be but to humor you, I had a glance.

I'll go ahead and understand that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground if you think a law explicitly forbidding governmental or judicial action to establish sexual preference as a protected 14th Amendment class is the same as the citizens of a state, via referendum, creating a legal definition of marriage.  You'll think they're the same when the only thing comparable about them is the subject the actions surround (homosexual marriage).  Congrats on your misplaced self-congratulatory contempt.  I'm sure it nicely compliments your other likely odious personality flaws making you into the kind of person people like to measure distances from.  You certainly manage to convey those qualities effectively enough in your scribbling anyway.

So, how about you go hump someone else's leg for awhile because I think we're done here.

This is the time you may want to redefine your constitution.

So you're done then?  I mean, what...that's the extent of your debate?  Toss out some bombast about being contemptuous of contrary opinions hoping to address someone who can't detect that you're an intellectual flyspeck?

I'm fairly well versed in "my Constitution", your advice not withstanding.  I'm also well aware of the legal difference between commission and omission which is pretty much what your Google-fu'd quoted case from Colorado was all about...and that that case has practically zero relevance to Prop 8 in the points of law which the SCOTUS will rightfully be considering.

But while we're discussing the Constitution here, how about you go educate yourself on what it is that constitutes a "protected class" under the 14th Amendment and why it might be a l ...


Are you going for douche of the year? Do you not realize how stupid you sound when you try to lecture on protected classes as though you just discovered what they are in the context of the Romer decision?
 
2013-03-27 09:20:02 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Sorry I don't agree with you or anyone else who says that it's right to deny people the basic rights and freedoms everyone else gets because Christians and retards hate them for loving people of the same gender. Comparing it to bestiality was also quite the dipshiat move.


And that's why you fail.  What the SCOTUS will do is to examine the California Prop 8 law and wording and see if it comports with the Constitution.  It has nothing to do with your childish emotional tantrum or what you consider to be a "dipshiat" move.  Just because you're incapable of objective thought without rampant emotion doesn't mean that everyone else shares that character flaw and is not the foundation of the laws of a civilized society.  You look and act juvenile and childish by comparison.

Every single person has the same rights and every single person is constrained by the same restrictions.  I can't legally fark a goat and neither can you.  I can't legally have sex with a child and neither can you.  I can get married and so can you and anyone else.  I can't marry a person of my same gender and neither can you.  See how that works?  Just because you REALLY WANT to do something doesn't mean it ought to be legal...especially when society and the community to which we belong has laws that say "no".  Some people REALLY WANT to fark goats and children.  They're not allowed to.  Where you fail so pathetically is in applying your emotional moral equivalency test to it.  That has zero to do with anything but you're so intellectually stunted that you apparently can't even perceive the lack of application.

Californians amended their constitution through a legal means.  Your throwing a fit over it not withstanding, what they did was entirely legal and proper and SHOULD have been what the gay community should have done IF they'd been interested in doing this correctly.  But, as usual, they're a special interest who has no interest in getting practical sensible laws passed.  No, they prefer legislation from the bench.  Trouble is, this court has a conservative slant and, should their efforts fail, how far back do you think they'll set their own agenda?

The court is indicating they'll rule on a narrow front.  Do you even understand what that signals?  It likely means this court thinks there is no broad issue (whether gay marriage should be legal nationwide) at hand here.  And if that's the case, do you even understand what THAT means?  That would mean that a majority of the court doesn't see sexual preference as something that can be effectively crafted into a protected class under the 14th Amendment...and that means people ARE free to discriminate against it.  Thinking further and in legal terms, how can you possibly try and craft a protected class based upon what a person claims?  It's not about love, or fornication or religion or any other ridiculous emotional crap you can't seem to divorce your idiocy from.

It all boils down to a request to create a protected class based on what a person claims.  Other protected classes exist because they were being discriminated against on the basis of something anyone could discern at a glance: skin color, ethnicity, religious affiliation, physical disability and so on.  No such situation exists when it comes to homosexuality.  Further, protected classes sometimes argue for and get special treatment based upon their protection status.  People with disabilities must be accommodated by law and hiring can be dependent upon disability status.  Hell, the SCOTUS also has a case before it about affirmative action which is a set aside program based on skin color.  The thing with sexual preference though is that I can't CLAIM to be black and I can't CLAIM to have a disability.  You either have them or you don't.  Not so with sexual preference.  There is no test one can discern that says "you are straight but you are gay".

For example, let's say sexual preference does become a protected class and California passes a law saying that there needs to be equality in rental accommodations.  I'm a straight guy and the apartment building I really want to get into has a vacancy.  If there's a gay dude who also wants the apartment, I'm screwed, right?  Wrong!  I can simply claim I'm gay and >presto!< I get all the advantages of the protected class rental set aside law.  And how do you prove that I'm not gay?  Short answer is, you can't...and that's why it's ill suited to be classified as a protected class under the 14th Amendment.  Black folks couldn't magically say "hey, I'm white" and be allowed admission to some schools in 1950's...so they needed a law that said that race is a protected class and you can't discriminate on that basis.

I'm going to go ahead and stop there because I'm pretty sure with your limited cerebral prowess that your head has either already exploded or you simply quit reading when you got to a big word...but this is the crux of the problem for the gay lobby.  They want to be designated a protected class but unless they're willing to say being gay is a disability or the result of a genetic/medical condition, they really can't make that argument.
 
2013-03-27 09:44:57 AM

craig328: And that's why you fail. What the SCOTUS will do is to examine the California Prop 8 law and wording and see if it comports with the Constitution. It has nothing to do with your childish emotional tantrum or what you consider to be a "dipshiat" move. Just because you're incapable of objective thought without rampant emotion doesn't mean that everyone else shares that character flaw and is not the foundation of the laws of a civilized society. You look and act juvenile and childish by comparison.


You don't see yourself, do you?
 
2013-03-27 09:48:11 AM

craig328: t all boils down to a request to create a protected class based on what a person claims.


Why are you getting into protected class analysis? I mean, it's obvious you're not a lawyer, and the purpose of the question is plain, but....
 
2013-03-27 09:50:38 AM

Salt Lick Steady: Are you going for douche of the year? Do you not realize how stupid you sound when you try to lecture on protected classes as though you just discovered what they are in the context of the Romer decision?


Calm down, pumpkin.  It's your trophy.  Nobody wants to take it from you.

members.optusnet.com.au

You keep thinking you are somehow informed as to what I know when clearly, you couldn't possibly have anything more than an atom of a clue.  I'm a whole hell of a lot more informed about what a protected class is under the 14th Amendment than you appear to be.  Listen, just because you read about a single court case which you (mistakenly) think validates your opinion on how this case should go doesn't apply to my knowledge, education and so on.  Going from what you've dropped onto this thread, YOU don't understand what happened in that case and why...just that it turned aside an ill-considered pre-emptive roadblock to establishing a protected class.

I hate seeing such blatant stupid on display and although I think it'll be a wasted effort, let's list the existing protected classes under the 14th, shall we?
Race, religion, color, national origin/ethnicity, disability status, veteran status, age, gender, familial status and genetic information.  Those all have one common denominator that sexual preference does not: an objective test.  This was discussed in Laderach v. U-Haul of Northwestern Ohio and Sischo-Nownejad v. Merced Community College Dist.

If gays can claim protection, based solely on association as a member of the gay class, then anyone can make the same claim and there are no standards of protection for any other protected class. How does one go about proving they are a member of a class that has no accurate definition and no criteria for membership?  The slippery slope exists when other people group themselves together and begin to claim protected class status for the most frivolous of claims.

For example, if a person is the subject to same-sex attraction, but never acts out any of their feelings, is that person entitled to class protection as a "Gay?" What about the commonly argued situation where two people of the same sex live together but are not sexually involved at all. Are they also a member of this protected class of "Gays?"  You think you have an answer to both of those questions, most likely, but that's not the standard that would need to be applied.  There needs to be an objective test to determine whether a person is a member of a protected class when they wish to claim discrimination against the same.  Amnesty Intern., USA v. Battle pretty well established that the person making a claim of discrimination must prove that they are a member of the protected class.  In the case of being gay, what do you have someone do?  Perform a sex act?  Does that sound silly?  How about YOU come up with a reliable objective criteria?
 
2013-03-27 09:58:35 AM

Salt Lick Steady: Are you going for douche of the year? Do you not realize how stupid you sound when you try to lecture on protected classes as though you just discovered what they are in the context of the Romer decision?


Dude.  He's a *birther*.  He got douche of the year a LONG time ago.
 
2013-03-27 09:58:55 AM

craig328: Every single person has the same rights and every single person is constrained by the same restrictions.


That's where you're wrong. This entire case is based upon the fact that gay people don't have the same rights as every other person. Straight people can marry, gay people cannot simply because they are gay and for no other reason. Gay people aren't asking to become a "protected class" in this case, they're simply asking not to be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. They aren't asking for special privileges, they're asking for the same privileges as anyone else who isn't gay.
 
2013-03-27 10:02:15 AM

Salt Lick Steady: craig328: t all boils down to a request to create a protected class based on what a person claims.

Why are you getting into protected class analysis? I mean, it's obvious you're not a lawyer, and the purpose of the question is plain, but....


The fact that you even asked that question just lowered my opinion of your IQ to new record lows.  Congrats.

To answer though, let'shiat the argument in logical order (which you appear to need help with):

1./ In order to claim illegal discrimination, one must be a member of a protected class.
2./ Gays arguing against Prop 8 claim that it is illegal because it discriminates against homosexuals.
3./ Homosexuality is not a protected class.
4./ Gays then advance the argument that sexual preference SHOULD be a protected class.
5./ The courts (through precedence and plain old common sense) have said that someone claiming to be illegally discriminated against MUST prove that they are a member of the protected class.
6./ This means that a definition of the protected class is necessary so that a reliable legal test can be performed pursuant to item 5.

So, since you appear to believe that sexual preference should be a class you cannot be legally allowed to discriminate against...what would your personal test be to determine who is gay and who is not?  That WILL need to be established so that legal challenges to discrimination can be mounted in our court system, you know (which is the entire focus of this whole thing).  So, in court, how shall we determine that the man who is claiming someone illegally discriminated against him (by say, saying he can't be married to another man, for instance) is actually a gay man?  You can claim such.  I can claim such.  Verbal claims of inclusion to a class don't suffice as the courts have said many, many times already.

I'm truly wanting to hear your solution for how do we tell a gay person from a straight person in a court of law.  Go for it.
 
2013-03-27 10:10:52 AM

CruiserTwelve: craig328: Every single person has the same rights and every single person is constrained by the same restrictions.

That's where you're wrong. This entire case is based upon the fact that gay people don't have the same rights as every other person. Straight people can marry, gay people cannot simply because they are gay and for no other reason. Gay people aren't asking to become a "protected class" in this case, they're simply asking not to be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. They aren't asking for special privileges, they're asking for the same privileges as anyone else who isn't gay.


Oh?  Let's test this theory.  Let's say I'm straight and you're gay.  I can marry another person.  I can marry a person who is not of the same gender as me.  I cannot marry a person who is the same gender as me.  I cannot marry a tree.  I cannot marry a child.  I cannot marry myself.  I cannot marry a family member.

Those are the restrictions to my rights...and they're the restrictions to your rights as well.  We both share the same rights and the same restrictions.  What you find odious is that you want to do something that is banned and I do not.

What you WANT to do doesn't make it right.  There are people who WANT to do all sorts of things that society has laws against.  Their right to do those odious things are just as restricted as my right to do them.  The difference is that they WANT to do them and I do not.
 
2013-03-27 10:34:25 AM

craig328: The difference is that they WANT to do them and I do not.


So you're saying that, because YOU don't want to do these things nobody else should be allowed to do them. That's the very definition of discrimination.

Give me one single reason why gays should not be allowed to marry other than "because society has laws against it."
 
2013-03-27 10:48:29 AM

craig328: Salt Lick Steady: craig328: t all boils down to a request to create a protected class based on what a person claims.

Why are you getting into protected class analysis? I mean, it's obvious you're not a lawyer, and the purpose of the question is plain, but....

The fact that you even asked that question just lowered my opinion of your IQ to new record lows.  Congrats.

To answer though, let'shiat the argument in logical order (which you appear to need help with):

1./ In order to claim illegal discrimination, one must be a member of a protected class.
2./ Gays arguing against Prop 8 claim that it is illegal because it discriminates against homosexuals.
3./ Homosexuality is not a protected class.
4./ Gays then advance the argument that sexual preference SHOULD be a protected class.
5./ The courts (through precedence and plain old common sense) have said that someone claiming to be illegally discriminated against MUST prove that they are a member of the protected class.
6./ This means that a definition of the protected class is necessary so that a reliable legal test can be performed pursuant to item 5.

So, since you appear to believe that sexual preference should be a class you cannot be legally allowed to discriminate against...what would your personal test be to determine who is gay and who is not?  That WILL need to be established so that legal challenges to discrimination can be mounted in our court system, you know (which is the entire focus of this whole thing).  So, in court, how shall we determine that the man who is claiming someone illegally discriminated against him (by say, saying he can't be married to another man, for instance) is actually a gay man?  You can claim such.  I can claim such.  Verbal claims of inclusion to a class don't suffice as the courts have said many, many times already.

I'm truly wanting to hear your solution for how do we tell a gay person from a straight person in a court of law.  Go for it.


Wow. I wasn't even trying to rope a dope, I was just trying to get you to stop embarrassing yourself. Not your plans for the day apparently.
 
2013-03-27 10:53:21 AM

craig328: I'm truly wanting to hear your solution for how do we tell a gay person from a straight person in a court of law. Go for it.


lulz, and I would love to hear your solution for determining if that white man *really* thinks that nubian princess is hot or is just playing the genetic field. Holy christ you're dumb.
 
2013-03-27 10:55:39 AM

CruiserTwelve: craig328: The difference is that they WANT to do them and I do not.

So you're saying that, because YOU don't want to do these things nobody else should be allowed to do them. That's the very definition of discrimination.

Give me one single reason why gays should not be allowed to marry other than "because society has laws against it."


No, I never once said I didn't want them to marry.  I'm keeping this debate as objective as possible.  What I want is immaterial.  This case is about what the people of California want.  And yes, it is discrimination.  However, you seem to be using the word discrimination as an automatic negative and it's not.  We also have laws that discriminate against people who want to commit murder and mayhem, for instance.  It may be a textbook definition of discrimination but nobody who's informed is debating that.  The debate is really about whether the basis for this discrimination should be illegal.

As for "one single reason" what it sounds like you're saying is "one single reason that's acceptable and convincing to you" and, unfortunately for you, that's not the standard.  The standard, whether you like and accept it or not, IS "because California has a legally enacted proposition against it".
 
2013-03-27 10:55:57 AM

craig328: I'm truly wanting to hear your solution for how do we tell a gay person from a straight person in a court of law. Go for it.


You could ask them. How do you tell what religion a person is if they don't practice openly? What if they switch religions?
 
2013-03-27 10:58:42 AM

craig328: CruiserTwelve: craig328: The difference is that they WANT to do them and I do not.

So you're saying that, because YOU don't want to do these things nobody else should be allowed to do them. That's the very definition of discrimination.

Give me one single reason why gays should not be allowed to marry other than "because society has laws against it."

No, I never once said I didn't want them to marry.  I'm keeping this debate as objective as possible.  What I want is immaterial.  This case is about what the people of California want.  And yes, it is discrimination.  However, you seem to be using the word discrimination as an automatic negative and it's not.  We also have laws that discriminate against people who want to commit murder and mayhem, for instance.  It may be a textbook definition of discrimination but nobody who's informed is debating that.  The debate is really about whether the basis for this discrimination should be illegal.

As for "one single reason" what it sounds like you're saying is "one single reason that's acceptable and convincing to you" and, unfortunately for you, that's not the standard.  The standard, whether you like and accept it or not, IS "because California has a legally enacted proposition against it".


If you're willing to redefine murder laws as discrimination laws, you really have nothing to say. Just stop.
 
2013-03-27 11:03:33 AM

Salt Lick Steady: craig328: I'm truly wanting to hear your solution for how do we tell a gay person from a straight person in a court of law. Go for it.

lulz, and I would love to hear your solution for determining if that white man *really* thinks that nubian princess is hot or is just playing the genetic field. Holy christ you're dumb.


Dude, you're the instant Google expert here.  I quoted you the appropriate precedent cases.  You're either lazy or indolent enough that you don't bother to even try and borrow a clue.  Your ignorance, however, doesn't change the fact that this case quite probably represents, at its core, a plea for creation of a new protected class.

Clearly, when you're out of ideas or even informed rebuttal you fall back on "rope a dope" and "you're dumb".  Unfortunately for you, I already have children so I'm accustomed to this level of immaturity.  Your vacancy of thought has been exposed more times than is worth recounting.  Suffice to say, it's stale.

I'd urge you to inform yourself better but then I really don't care what you think of the issue.  All along, I've described the legal landscape and practical and real challenges to what this case represents while you've been little more than a petulant, emotional toddler because you probably lack the ability to form a clear, logical progression of thought and never will.  Don't take that the wrong way.  The world needs people like you.

Lord knows, I'm not going make my own fries.
 
2013-03-27 11:07:06 AM

craig328: Salt Lick Steady: craig328: I'm truly wanting to hear your solution for how do we tell a gay person from a straight person in a court of law. Go for it.

lulz, and I would love to hear your solution for determining if that white man *really* thinks that nubian princess is hot or is just playing the genetic field. Holy christ you're dumb.

Dude, you're the instant Google expert here.  I quoted you the appropriate precedent cases.  You're either lazy or indolent enough that you don't bother to even try and borrow a clue.  Your ignorance, however, doesn't change the fact that this case quite probably represents, at its core, a plea for creation of a new protected class.

Clearly, when you're out of ideas or even informed rebuttal you fall back on "rope a dope" and "you're dumb".  Unfortunately for you, I already have children so I'm accustomed to this level of immaturity.  Your vacancy of thought has been exposed more times than is worth recounting.  Suffice to say, it's stale.

I'd urge you to inform yourself better but then I really don't care what you think of the issue.  All along, I've described the legal landscape and practical and real challenges to what this case represents while you've been little more than a petulant, emotional toddler because you probably lack the ability to form a clear, logical progression of thought and never will.  Don't take that the wrong way.  The world needs people like you.

Lord knows, I'm not going make my own fries.


A google expert, huh? Your projection is precious.
 
2013-03-27 11:08:12 AM
craig328:  This case is about what the people of California want.  And yes, it is discrimination.

You seem to be saying that discrimination is acceptable as long as a majority of the people favor it. Would that accurately describe your position?
 
2013-03-27 11:10:41 AM
To nobody in particular: there exists an equal protection argument that has nothing to do with protected classes.
 
2013-03-27 11:12:26 AM

Salt Lick Steady: To nobody in particular: there exists an equal protection argument that has nothing to do with protected classes.


I agree. In fact, they are two distinctly separate arguments.
 
2013-03-27 11:13:45 AM

CruiserTwelve: craig328:  This case is about what the people of California want.  And yes, it is discrimination.

You seem to be saying that discrimination is acceptable as long as a majority of the people favor it. Would that accurately describe your position?


Why bother? Next post you'll be accused of being a rent-a-cop, and I'm his public defender
 
2013-03-27 11:18:11 AM

CruiserTwelve: Salt Lick Steady: To nobody in particular: there exists an equal protection argument that has nothing to do with protected classes.

I agree. In fact, they are two distinctly separate arguments.


And may I just say that while I don't always agree with you, I always appreciate your arguments and perspective. Seems necessary to emphasize at a time like this.
 
2013-03-27 11:21:01 AM

Robert Farker: craig328: I'm truly wanting to hear your solution for how do we tell a gay person from a straight person in a court of law. Go for it.

You could ask them. How do you tell what religion a person is if they don't practice openly? What if they switch religions?


YOU, amongst all the rest here, have finally asked a cogent question.  To me, looking at it from the anti-Prop 8 side, THIS is where their argument needs to lie.  Unfortunately though it isn't as easy as it sounds.

Religion was established as a protected class by Titles II and III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Now, considering the impetus at the time was the civil rights movement, the overwhelming interest was on race.  Keep in mind, the Civil Rights Act was a mostly Republican piece of legislation (although backed by the Democrat president Johnson) and had little chance on passing if it were focused solely on race.  It needed to be more broad based at the time to appeal to Catholics, Jews and such (recall that America's first Catholic president was assassinated just months before) and so garner more widespread support, especially in the North where there were substantial religious disparity.

Now, keep in mind that a test only comes up when there is a suit brought alleging discrimination on that basis.  The law itself doesn't say "needs to be a test".  Judges have to have one though to know whether a suit even broaches a fundamental threshold.  Such suits are normally for things like access to public facilities and accommodations.  However, even in 1964, there wasn't a real issue with, for example, motels not renting to orthodox Jews and such and a real case has never really been brought forward and so a solid test has never really been described.

Personally, I think this IS an angle the anti-Prop 8 folk need to explore but unfortunately there isn't a whole lot of supporting case precedent there.  In fact, it was only in the past couple of years that a possible religious civil rights case was even filed.  Felber v. Yudof (2011) claims that Berkeley University failed to take measures to protect against religiously motivated assault (Muslim students harassing and assaulting Jewish students on campus) and that case was really a first-of-its-kind case.
 
2013-03-27 11:24:15 AM

CruiserTwelve: craig328:  This case is about what the people of California want.  And yes, it is discrimination.

You seem to be saying that discrimination is acceptable as long as a majority of the people favor it. Would that accurately describe your position?


No.  Let me say it clearly: discrimination is acceptable as long as it's not against a protected class or unless a law exists to define a group that may not be discriminated against but who aren't recognized as a protected class.

We discriminate all the time.  You the place on the job application that asks "have you ever been convicted of a felony"?  That's discrimination and that's entire legal.
 
2013-03-27 11:31:40 AM

Salt Lick Steady: Wow. I wasn't even trying to rope a dope, I was just trying to get you to stop embarrassing yourself. Not your plans for the day apparently.


Salt, you're arguing with a birther.  That means he's either deliberately trolling or he's eaten a LOT of wall candy during his formative years.  Either way, you're not going to get anywhere.
 
2013-03-27 11:31:57 AM

CruiserTwelve: Salt Lick Steady: To nobody in particular: there exists an equal protection argument that has nothing to do with protected classes.

I agree. In fact, they are two distinctly separate arguments.


Not really.  The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment ("...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") is what provides the basis for the establishment of protected classes.  They're different concepts but they're not really separable or even meaningfully need to be.

However, if anyone here thinks that a person is not enjoying the equal protection of the laws, I already answered Cruiser's question in that we both share the same rights and same restrictions.  I'm straight and I can't marry a man either.  Being gay isn't the determiner here.  Gay man can't marry a man.  Neither can a straight man.  I can marry a woman.  A gay man can marry a woman too (and over history, quite a few have).

There is no "one law for straight people and another law for gay people" here.
 
2013-03-27 12:16:53 PM

Corvus: Profedius: Sighting an extreme event in order to support illegal searches...

I wasn't. Next time before responding read what the person was responding to instead of just jumping in and being an ass.




It would seem that the one having an emotional response in the discussion of this topic is you since you are at a point of reducing the discussion to name calling and character attacks. Improving understanding of the law and explaining a tactic where unfounded fear is used to influence the less enlighten in order to educate is not being an "ass" Where calling someone an ass and suggesting they shut up would qualify as displaying characteristics commonly associated with someone that would be considered an ass by the general population.
 
2013-03-27 02:46:35 PM

craig328: CruiserTwelve: craig328:  This case is about what the people of California want.  And yes, it is discrimination.

You seem to be saying that discrimination is acceptable as long as a majority of the people favor it. Would that accurately describe your position?

No.  Let me say it clearly: discrimination is acceptable as long as it's not against a protected class or unless a law exists to define a group that may not be discriminated against but who aren't recognized as a protected class.

We discriminate all the time.  You the place on the job application that asks "have you ever been convicted of a felony"?  That's discrimination and that's entire legal.


You really are a farking retarded ape. Seriously trying to say that "Have you committed a crime, and if you have that may impact your chances of being hired by us because we're not sure we want someone who's committed a crime working for us" is the exact same thing as "You filthy queers can't marry each other because Jesus says so and I think it's icky" and using that as your defense of denying gays the same rights as others?

I sincerely hope you're just trolling, because if you seriously believe the shiat that drips from your mouth that's incredibly sad.
 
2013-03-27 03:00:57 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: craig328: CruiserTwelve: craig328:  This case is about what the people of California want.  And yes, it is discrimination.

You seem to be saying that discrimination is acceptable as long as a majority of the people favor it. Would that accurately describe your position?

No.  Let me say it clearly: discrimination is acceptable as long as it's not against a protected class or unless a law exists to define a group that may not be discriminated against but who aren't recognized as a protected class.

We discriminate all the time.  You the place on the job application that asks "have you ever been convicted of a felony"?  That's discrimination and that's entire legal.

You really are a farking retarded ape. Seriously trying to say that "Have you committed a crime, and if you have that may impact your chances of being hired by us because we're not sure we want someone who's committed a crime working for us" is the exact same thing as "You filthy queers can't marry each other because Jesus says so and I think it's icky" and using that as your defense of denying gays the same rights as others?

I sincerely hope you're just trolling, because if you seriously believe the shiat that drips from your mouth that's incredibly sad.


The fact that you can't discern that they're both instances of people discriminating spells you out as drooling cretin.  Forget the fact that it was stated plainly and required only a grade schooler's grasp of context to understand.  You have literally nothing left to hang your hat on debate-wise so you reach for something any idiot (who are clearly your intellectual superiors) could easily see just so you can be an insulting asshole.  The only one of us to use the words "filthy", "queer", or "Jesus" here is you so far.  Congrats.

How about you turn your attention to something you're good at?  Talking to grown ups isn't on that list.  Maybe go play with your Legos or something, hm?
 
2013-03-27 03:14:35 PM

craig328: We discriminate all the time.  You the place on the job application that asks "have you ever been convicted of a felony"?  That's discrimination and that's entire legal.


Two responses to that. First there's a rational cause for wanting to know if a potential employee is a convicted felon, and second, the constitution applies to the government, not private employers. Since marriage is a government institution, the SCOTUS is currently deciding if discrimination against gay people by denying them the right to marry is consistent with the constitution.

You're arguing a different point. Private companies cannot discriminate against protected classes. That's not what this debate is about.
 
2013-03-27 03:24:58 PM

CruiserTwelve: Since marriage is a government institution

...

It's been co-opted by the government, yes.
 
2013-03-27 03:33:27 PM

craig328: Keizer_Ghidorah: craig328: CruiserTwelve: craig328:  This case is about what the people of California want.  And yes, it is discrimination.

You seem to be saying that discrimination is acceptable as long as a majority of the people favor it. Would that accurately describe your position?

No.  Let me say it clearly: discrimination is acceptable as long as it's not against a protected class or unless a law exists to define a group that may not be discriminated against but who aren't recognized as a protected class.

We discriminate all the time.  You the place on the job application that asks "have you ever been convicted of a felony"?  That's discrimination and that's entire legal.

You really are a farking retarded ape. Seriously trying to say that "Have you committed a crime, and if you have that may impact your chances of being hired by us because we're not sure we want someone who's committed a crime working for us" is the exact same thing as "You filthy queers can't marry each other because Jesus says so and I think it's icky" and using that as your defense of denying gays the same rights as others?

I sincerely hope you're just trolling, because if you seriously believe the shiat that drips from your mouth that's incredibly sad.

The fact that you can't discern that they're both instances of people discriminating spells you out as drooling cretin.  Forget the fact that it was stated plainly and required only a grade schooler's grasp of context to understand.  You have literally nothing left to hang your hat on debate-wise so you reach for something any idiot (who are clearly your intellectual superiors) could easily see just so you can be an insulting asshole.  The only one of us to use the words "filthy", "queer", or "Jesus" here is you so far.  Congrats.

How about you turn your attention to something you're good at?  Talking to grown ups isn't on that list.  Maybe go play with your Legos or something, hm?


That felon might steal property, destroy property, or cause injury or death to someone if hired, since the felon has already done it before. I'd hardly call that "discrimination".
Two gay people marrying each other has caused... absolutely nothing negative in the entire course of recorded history.

So tell me, why should they be denied the same rights as everyone else? Answer: you can't. But you don't want them to have those rights because you're a bigoted asshole. You don't HAVE to say any of those words, because your stance and views says them for you. And it's extremely amusing and sad how you insist on trying the "Hurpa derpa doo you such a child because you talk mean to me" method of worming your way out of the debate. Weasel and ooze all you want, the fact oft he matter is you demand the discrimination and oppression of people because they don't meet your ass-backwards farktarded views. If you weren't you wouldn't be supporting denying them basic rights and freedoms that the country was founded upon.

So who's the real child here? At least I'm adult enough to not scream and throw hissy fits because two homos are doing something that has ZERO affect on me and demand they be treated as second-class sub-humans.
 
2013-03-27 04:30:31 PM

CruiserTwelve: craig328: We discriminate all the time.  You the place on the job application that asks "have you ever been convicted of a felony"?  That's discrimination and that's entire legal.

Two responses to that. First there's a rational cause for wanting to know if a potential employee is a convicted felon, and second, the constitution applies to the government, not private employers. Since marriage is a government institution, the SCOTUS is currently deciding if discrimination against gay people by denying them the right to marry is consistent with the constitution.

You're arguing a different point. Private companies cannot discriminate against protected classes. That's not what this debate is about.


You mean like Augusta National Golf Club and the Boy and Girl Scouts of America?
 
2013-03-27 04:52:07 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: That felon might steal property, destroy property, or cause injury or death to someone if hired, since the felon has already done it before. I'd hardly call that "discrimination".

Two gay people marrying each other has caused... absolutely nothing negative in the entire course of recorded history.

So tell me, why should they be denied the same rights as everyone else? Answer: you can't. But you don't want them to have those rights because you're a bigoted asshole. You don't HAVE to say any of those words, because your stance and views says them for you. And it's extremely amusing and sad how you insist on trying the "Hurpa derpa doo you such a child because you talk mean to me" method of worming your way out of the debate. Weasel and ooze all you want, the fact oft he matter is you demand the discrimination and oppression of people because they don't meet your ass-backwards farktarded views. If you weren't you wouldn't be supporting denying them basic rights and freedoms that the country was founded upon.

So who's the real child here? At least I'm adult enough to not scream and throw hissy fits because two homos are doing something that has ZERO affect on me and demand they be treated as second-class sub-humans.

 .
If you took even a few minutes time (and possessed the capacity to not act like a raging prick...oh well) and went back and read what I've written, I've injected absolutely zero personal opinion into this.  You're so childish that you simply cannot respond to someone who doesn't agree with you on a basis that doesn't immediately devolve to personal attacks.  Nice personality you have going there, BTW.

I'll say this a third time (just for you pumpkin): everyone has the same rights.  Yes, I know you're far too emotional and intellectually shallow to even consider that objectively for even a moment but, despite your histrionics, it's true.  Gay men can't marry men.  Guess what: neither can straight men.  Gay women can't marry women.  Guess what again: neither can straight women.  There are lots of restrictions on who you can marry and those restrictions apply to everyone, gay or straight.

People love their dogs.  Can't marry them.  People love kids.  Can't marry them either.  People love cheeseburgers.  Nope, can't marry them either.

Your massive failing is equating "but they love them so they should be allowed" with "marriage".  I love my father and my son and my nephews.  Can't marry any of them and it has nothing to do with with whether I'm gay or straight.  I know your tiny little overworked mind won't grasp this but those prohibitions apply to everyone regardless of which hole they prefer to fark.  Gay people in California can have as much consensual sex as they want with whomever they like (minus children and other prohibited classes of people who can't legally give consent).  There's no law against that.  They can live together under the same roof, share bills, fight, argue, make up, go on vacation and even raise kids (if they have them).  There's no law against that there either.  They can even head down to the courthouse and enter into a domestic partnership which, in California, which according to 297.5. (a) of the California Family Code section has:

"the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses. "

...or, in other words, marriage.  What they cannot do is call it marriage because California voters decided to formally and legally define "marriage" as "between a man and a woman".

Yes, you're probably ignorant as a farking post about any and all of that and your ignorance somehow, presumably via the use of "Magic for Idiots", makes me a bigoted asshole for telling you about what the facts of the issue are.  I apologize that being exposed to mature, rational, fact-based and objective thought simply gives you the vapors.  I expect little else on Fark boards anymore but it's still distressing to witness the woefully immature, ignorant and witless foundering in the shallow puddle of fact, logic and dispassionate discourse.

Remember to wait 30 minutes after your cookie before venturing in again.
 
2013-03-27 06:18:43 PM

craig328: Keizer_Ghidorah: That felon might steal property, destroy property, or cause injury or death to someone if hired, since the felon has already done it before. I'd hardly call that "discrimination".

Two gay people marrying each other has caused... absolutely nothing negative in the entire course of recorded history.

So tell me, why should they be denied the same rights as everyone else? Answer: you can't. But you don't want them to have those rights because you're a bigoted asshole. You don't HAVE to say any of those words, because your stance and views says them for you. And it's extremely amusing and sad how you insist on trying the "Hurpa derpa doo you such a child because you talk mean to me" method of worming your way out of the debate. Weasel and ooze all you want, the fact oft he matter is you demand the discrimination and oppression of people because they don't meet your ass-backwards farktarded views. If you weren't you wouldn't be supporting denying them basic rights and freedoms that the country was founded upon.

So who's the real child here? At least I'm adult enough to not scream and throw hissy fits because two homos are doing something that has ZERO affect on me and demand they be treated as second-class sub-humans.
 .
If you took even a few minutes time (and possessed the capacity to not act like a raging prick...oh well) and went back and read what I've written, I've injected absolutely zero personal opinion into this.  You're so childish that you simply cannot respond to someone who doesn't agree with you on a basis that doesn't immediately devolve to personal attacks.  Nice personality you have going there, BTW.

I'll say this a third time (just for you pumpkin): everyone has the same rights.  Yes, I know you're far too emotional and intellectually shallow to even consider that objectively for even a moment but, despite your histrionics, it's true.  Gay men can't marry men.  Guess what: neither can straight men.  Gay women can't marry women.  Gue ...


everyone has the same rights

As long as they marry who you say they should. Just like when interracial marriage was deemed evil and disgusting and against God. And when "Separate but equal" was deemed God's will and the way things shoudl be because people didn't want to be anywhere near those uppity Negros.

I don't have to read the rest of your bullshiat, because that's exactly what it is. America was founded on "All men are created equal". The religious and the bigots can biatch and cry and whine until they're blue in the face, they don't get to deny people from marrying THE CONSENTING ADULTS THAT THEY LOVE using their backwards views and personal opinions. And people like you who support their side are just as bad as they are.
 
2013-03-27 07:45:42 PM

craig328: You mean like Augusta National Golf Club and the Boy and Girl Scouts of America?


What are you talking about? What do those organizations have to do with this issue?
 
2013-03-27 09:11:09 PM

CruiserTwelve: craig328: You mean like Augusta National Golf Club and the Boy and Girl Scouts of America?

What are you talking about? What do those organizations have to do with this issue?


Nothing, which is why he brought them up. When a retarded troll is failing at an argument, clouding the issue and thrashing at unrelated things are acceptable tactics.
 
2013-03-28 12:43:17 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: What's that smell?

"Bullshiat, herp dee derp".

Sorry I don't agree with you or anyone else who says that it's right to deny people the basic rights and freedoms everyone else gets because Christians and retards hate them for loving people of the same gender. Comparing it to bestiality was also quite the dipshiat move.



My reply.

You misinterpreted it.

/What else?
 
2013-03-28 02:36:59 AM

Amos Quito: Keizer_Ghidorah: What's that smell?

"Bullshiat, herp dee derp".

Sorry I don't agree with you or anyone else who says that it's right to deny people the basic rights and freedoms everyone else gets because Christians and retards hate them for loving people of the same gender. Comparing it to bestiality was also quite the dipshiat move.

My reply.

You misinterpreted it.

/What else?


Sorry, craig328 had pissed me off. You good kid.
 
2013-03-30 12:27:45 AM

kindms: Kittypie070: elvindeath: 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 A PROVEN TRAITOR AND TERRORIST without warrant, search or trial.

Fixed, for the pro-terrorist Islam-licker.

Oh really ? LOUD NOISES!!


Look, motherfarker, I listened to eight farking years of hysterical screaming about Islam-ism of any kind whatsoever being the mark of an incorrigibly dyed in the wool bone-deep terrorist.

It's so convenient that you're arguing for the precious precious rights of someone who turned his coat against his country and went all Durka Durka Jihad Mohammed.

You are NOT permitted to change your mind EVER once your holy right wing media masters have made it up for you.
 
Displayed 358 of 358 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report