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  
•       •       •

16311 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2013 at 1:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-26 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
 
Displayed 50 of 358 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report