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

(Fox News)   Justice Scalia says it's unfortunate Judges will be the ones to decide the legality of NSA wiretaps, because apparently no one in the Judicial branch can be bothered to learn anything about online security or privacy   (foxnews.com) divider line 44
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

673 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Sep 2013 at 12:52 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-09-25 12:58:14 PM  
Antonin Scalia: Concern Troll Extraordinaire

/it's your farking job, you shiatbag
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-09-25 12:59:56 PM  
If Justice Scalia represents our highest intelligentsia in this country...

theuniblog.files.wordpress.com

We're farked.

They should just put up "the judgment brought to you by..." signs and corporate logos and be done with it.
 
2013-09-25 01:00:32 PM  
"Scalia said the high court originally ruled that there were no constitutional prohibitions on wiretaps because conversations were not explicitly granted privacy protection under the Fourth Amendment."

Reason #435 why I think originalists are full of shiat.
 
2013-09-25 01:00:46 PM  
This man has hand wringing down to a science.
 
2013-09-25 01:01:51 PM  
Did TV even exist when this guy was a kid?
 
2013-09-25 01:02:37 PM  

Snapper Carr: "Scalia said the high court originally ruled that there were no constitutional prohibitions on wiretaps because conversations were not explicitly granted privacy protection under the Fourth Amendment."

Reason #435 why I think originalists are full of shiat.


The constitution does not specifically mention a right to NOT be groped before getting on the airplane therefore,
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-09-25 01:03:16 PM  

Snapper Carr: "Scalia said the high court originally ruled that there were no constitutional prohibitions on wiretaps because conversations were not explicitly granted privacy protection under the Fourth Amendment."

Reason #435 why I think originalists are full of shiat.


he's not even CLOSE to an originalist.  The claim is spurious as to be comical.

If he was an originalist corporations would not have any rights.  Not only are corporations not mentioned in the constitution, but the Federalist papers say corporations should have defined rights.

He's full of shiat on just about every level and he's a disgrace, just like most of the rest of SCOTUS, all but 2 of our senators, and our entire house.  Obama is not that great either.
 
2013-09-25 01:03:44 PM  

Kuroshin: it's your farking job, you shiatbag


Exactly.  What the court is being asked to rule on is the Constitutionality of various practices.  Constitutionality is something that is squarely within a court's wheelhouse, especially a federal court and especially the US Supreme Court.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-09-25 01:04:35 PM  

shut_it_down: Kuroshin: it's your farking job, you shiatbag

Exactly.  What the court is being asked to rule on is the Constitutionality of various practices.  Constitutionality is something that is squarely within a court's wheelhouse, especially a federal court and especially the US Supreme Court.


but the elite don't work.  That's for parasites.

This country is farked. We totally respect everyone that doesn't deserve it.
 
2013-09-25 01:04:47 PM  
Scalia's definition of what a judge should do, could be done by machine*. It requires no actual human judgement, research, or independent intelligence.

The guy is a total moron.


*Except, of course, when his political ideology conflicts with originalist text.
 
2013-09-25 01:07:36 PM  
If Scalia finds it too difficult to learn the ins and outs of technology that will become increasingly important in the modern world, perhaps he should consider stepping down.  I'm sure Obama would have happy to appoint a replacement.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-25 01:13:00 PM  
Scalia should resign in protest.
 
2013-09-25 01:14:28 PM  
www.joulespersecond.com
 
2013-09-25 01:14:31 PM  
Scallia being an ass aside, the courts have not wanted to make much legislation on internet-based legalities as the technology is still both very new and evolving very fast. Making any hard and fast rules might greatly effect the market in ways that the courts and even leading analysts could fathom as things move so quickly in the electronic world.
 
2013-09-25 01:22:06 PM  

JollyMagistrate: Making any hard and fast rules might greatly effect the market in ways that the courts and even leading analysts could fathom as things move so quickly in the electronic world.


I honestly have no idea why this should be part of their considerations at all.
 
2013-09-25 01:29:40 PM  

sprawl15: JollyMagistrate: Making any hard and fast rules might greatly effect the market in ways that the courts and even leading analysts could fathom as things move so quickly in the electronic world.

I honestly have no idea why this should be part of their considerations at all.


The Supreme Court doesn't like to make federal level decisions on unsettled technology. This has essentially been their stance since the 1800s. Typically they will pass back such cases to lower courts unless there is an undeniable reason to make a decision. I don't know if it is right, but that's been how they do things.

With the NSA case, I wouldn't be surprised if they made a decision with the closing tag "this is only for this instance and the courts reserve the right to make further inquiry with additional cases" such as with Scallia's "I'll know it when I see it" rationale.
 
2013-09-25 01:29:42 PM  

Snapper Carr: "Scalia said the high court originally ruled that there were no constitutional prohibitions on wiretaps because conversations were not explicitly granted privacy protection under the Fourth Amendment."

Reason #435 why I think originalists are full of shiat.


Yes, because everyone knows that the bill of rights is drafted as a comprehensive document listing out everything that it conceivably covers, rather than general categories of rights.
 
2013-09-25 01:31:22 PM  
Justice Scalia says it's unfortunate Judges will be the ones to decide the legality of NSA wiretaps, because apparently no one in the Judicial branch can be bothered to learn anything about online security or privacy

www.filmsite.org

"Isn't that true?"

// like, aren't us libs always complaining that the crusty old white dudes in various chambers don't know DNS from DOS, that they don't know SSH from shine-ola?
 
2013-09-25 01:32:56 PM  

JollyMagistrate: The Supreme Court doesn't like to make federal level decisions on unsettled technology.


But it's not a decision on technology, it's a decision on privacy. They wouldn't rule (or shouldn't, at least) in a way that's dependent on technology such that it requires a new ruling when new technology is developed. They would rule in a way that clarifies what exactly is protected privacy and what exactly is required to violate that privacy.
 
2013-09-25 01:37:51 PM  

sprawl15: JollyMagistrate: The Supreme Court doesn't like to make federal level decisions on unsettled technology.

But it's not a decision on technology, it's a decision on privacy. They wouldn't rule (or shouldn't, at least) in a way that's dependent on technology such that it requires a new ruling when new technology is developed. They would rule in a way that clarifies what exactly is protected privacy and what exactly is required to violate that privacy.


I agree with you on what I believe. Historically, a determination on this case would be bound directly to the technology in use as they do not want to pass judgement on privacy for yet-uninvented technology.

I'm not arguing that this is the right way to go at all. Only that it is likely the outcome we will get.
 
2013-09-25 01:39:27 PM  

Snapper Carr: "Scalia said the high court originally ruled that there were no constitutional prohibitions on wiretaps because conversations were not explicitly granted privacy protection under the Fourth Amendment."

Reason #435 why I think originalists are full of shiat.


Reason #436 is that in most areas they are unwilling to make decisions based on the obvious logic of an amendment to make a reasonable inference but are more than willing to find an individual right to own a gun even though all evidence suggests that the second amendment, as originally intended, had nothing to do with that!

Originalism is just a form of argument used to give a sheen of respectability to the claim that the FOUNDERSTM agreed with whatever modern conservatives believe.
 
2013-09-25 01:42:58 PM  

JollyMagistrate: Historically, a determination on this case would be bound directly to the technology in use as they do not want to pass judgement on privacy for yet-uninvented technology.


Isn't the controlling rule about e-mail dependent on a ruling from 1984ish?

// looking it up on teh googs, can't seem to find it easily
// Data Protection Act was 1984, but it looks like it was superseded
 
2013-09-25 01:45:48 PM  

JollyMagistrate: I'm not arguing that this is the right way to go at all. Only that it is likely the outcome we will get.


To be fair, I'd not be totally surprised if they just say it's not justiciable and wash their hands of the deal. So I can understand that.
 
2013-09-25 02:04:16 PM  
What's unfortunate is that our country is saddled with an asshat like Scalia
 
2013-09-25 02:15:18 PM  
Justice Scalia is an oxymoron.
 
2013-09-25 02:29:46 PM  

sprawl15: JollyMagistrate: The Supreme Court doesn't like to make federal level decisions on unsettled technology.

But it's not a decision on technology, it's a decision on privacy. They wouldn't rule (or shouldn't, at least) in a way that's dependent on technology such that it requires a new ruling when new technology is developed. They would rule in a way that clarifies what exactly is protected privacy and what exactly is required to violate that privacy.


This.  A legal doctrine you can call "judicial competency" cautions judges not to lightly substitute their own opinion for the opinion of a governmental agency, when the issue involves technical matters within the agency's area of expertise.  For example, imagine FDA after review says that 0.002 ppm of a particular contaminant is a safe level for consumption.  Judge will be reluctant to say no, I think it should be 0.001 because the court is not a chemistry expert.  Justice Scalia is signalling he is open to that argument here.

In the case involving a tracking device placed on the suspect's car without a warrant, Scalia opined it was a 4th Amendment violation, but on a narrow theory of physical trespass.  The question of whether the outcome would be the same if agents had not committed the physical trespass was reserved for another case.  So Scalia sometimes sides with the people and against LEO's in these kinds of cases, but in the matter of the NSA, seems unlikely to help forge the kind of broad ruling that would force meaningful changes in domestic surveillance practices.
 
2013-09-25 02:36:37 PM  
Since when has it been the job of SCOTUS to interpret the constitution and bill of rights?

Answer me that!!
 
2013-09-25 02:41:38 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: sprawl15: JollyMagistrate: The Supreme Court doesn't like to make federal level decisions on unsettled technology.

But it's not a decision on technology, it's a decision on privacy. They wouldn't rule (or shouldn't, at least) in a way that's dependent on technology such that it requires a new ruling when new technology is developed. They would rule in a way that clarifies what exactly is protected privacy and what exactly is required to violate that privacy.

This.  A legal doctrine you can call "judicial competency" cautions judges not to lightly substitute their own opinion for the opinion of a governmental agency, when the issue involves technical matters within the agency's area of expertise.  For example, imagine FDA after review says that 0.002 ppm of a particular contaminant is a safe level for consumption.  Judge will be reluctant to say no, I think it should be 0.001 because the court is not a chemistry expert.  Justice Scalia is signalling he is open to that argument here.

In the case involving a tracking device placed on the suspect's car without a warrant, Scalia opined it was a 4th Amendment violation, but on a narrow theory of physical trespass.  The question of whether the outcome would be the same if agents had not committed the physical trespass was reserved for another case.  So Scalia sometimes sides with the people and against LEO's in these kinds of cases, but in the matter of the NSA, seems unlikely to help forge the kind of broad ruling that would force meaningful changes in domestic surveillance practices.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't part of that also because of the extended nature of the tracking?  Something along the lines of a tracking unit used for a couple of days was OK without a warrant, similar to the police following you around in a car, but that the 30+ days the person was actually continually monitored by the tracking device required a warrant because it was a major intrusion into that person's privacy?
 
2013-09-25 02:57:18 PM  

dittybopper: Something along the lines of a tracking unit used for a couple of days was OK without a warrant, similar to the police following you around in a car, but that the 30+ days the person was actually continually monitored by the tracking device required a warrant because it was a major intrusion into that person's privacy?


Not precisely. This not-shiatty blog goes into it pretty well, but basically the courts explicitly ruled that in the case of Jones the government crossed the line but didn't really define where the line was (and some suggested that short term tracking would be OK).
 
2013-09-25 03:02:02 PM  

dittybopper: 4tehsnowflakes: sprawl15: JollyMagistrate:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't part of that also because of the extended nature of the tracking?  Something along the lines of a tracking unit used for a couple of days was OK without a warrant, similar to the police following you around in a car, but that the 30+ days the person was actually continually monitored by the tracking device required a warrant because it was a major intrusion into that person's privacy?


That's right,  Scalia said in Jones that reasonable expectation of privacy applies after the initial question of whether a trespass occurred.  Alito got Ginsburg, Kagan and Breyer to join his concurring opinion saying that the question should have been decided under Katz, on reasonable expectation not on trespass.  But Alito also signaled in Jones that he was inclined to be OK with domestic surveillance authorized by FISA.  He gave a version of "you are already an AW in social media, so you shouldn't care if the government peeks."  He said this about reasonable expectation:

"the Katz test rests on the assumption that this hypothetical reasonable person has a well-developed and stable set of privacy expectations. But technology can change those expectations. Dramatic technological change may lead to periods in which popular expectations are in flux and may ultimately produce significant changes in popular attitudes. New technology may provide increased convenience or security at the expense of privacy, and many people may find the tradeoff worthwhile. And even if the public does not welcome the diminution of privacy that new technology entails,they may eventually reconcile themselves to this development as inevitable."
 
2013-09-25 03:09:27 PM  
If Justice Scalia cannot or will not or does not want to perform his Constitutional duties at the highest level of performance, he should immediately resign his SCOTUS appointment. That is the only ethical manner for him to proceed.
 
2013-09-25 03:19:48 PM  

sprawl15: dittybopper: Something along the lines of a tracking unit used for a couple of days was OK without a warrant, similar to the police following you around in a car, but that the 30+ days the person was actually continually monitored by the tracking device required a warrant because it was a major intrusion into that person's privacy?

Not precisely. This not-shiatty blog goes into it pretty well, but basically the courts explicitly ruled that in the case of Jones the government crossed the line but didn't really define where the line was (and some suggested that short term tracking would be OK).


Well, the justices did rule that long-term systematic monitoring without a warrant is unconstitutional:

(iv) long-term monitoring using some technology is a search: defendant wins with at least 5 votes, with the remaining Justices not addressing the issue.

Also, I said this "  wasn't part of that also because of the extended nature of the tracking? ", and indeed I was correct.

I'm curious about your opinion of the non-shiattiness of SCOTUSblog regarding such decisions as Heller and McDonald.
 
2013-09-25 04:03:42 PM  

dittybopper: Well, the justices did rule that long-term systematic monitoring without a warrant is unconstitutional


Which is what Jones was specifically about. Thus, "the courts explicitly ruled that in the case of Jones the government crossed the line."

dittybopper: Also, I said this


I was more pointing out that they didn't rule that way, though they did strongly suggest that they would probably rule that way. It was 'part' of it, yes, but exactly how it was 'part' of it is pretty important. Just like 'part' of Heller was ruling a handgun ban unconstitutional and 'part' of Heller was suggesting that the degree of public use of a weapon holds bearing on the authority to ban.

dittybopper: I'm curious about your opinion of the non-shiattiness of SCOTUSblog regarding such decisions as Heller and McDonald.


Do you have a specific blog post in mind?

Or perhaps more to the underlying assumptions, do you have a particular reason to think I'm anti-gun?
 
2013-09-25 06:32:22 PM  
justtray: Did TV even exist when this guy was a kid?

Actually, no, no it didn't.  Scalia is 77; he was born in 1936.  While there were a few experimental demonstrations of television at the 1939 New York World's Fair, the cultural phenomenon we know as 'broadcast television', with actual regularly scheduled programs seen simultaneously by large numbers of ordinary people, did not start to gain traction until well after World War II.

Now, something that Scalia *would* have been familiar with from his childhood would have been 'Network Radio', which also had regularly scheduled programs heard by large numbers of people.  Dramas, comedy, thrillers, variety shows, westerns, anthologies, radio adaptations of hit movies, the '30s, '40s, and '50s had all that.  A lot of shows that went on to be TV hits started on radio (Dragnet, Gunsmoke, Lucille Ball, etc.)

(If you want a taste of that era, WAMU radio in Washington, DC, 88.5 FM, runs a 4-hour block of classic radio from 7 - 11 pm every Sunday evening.  Their web site, WAMU.org, has the preceding week's show available for streaming listening on the web, so it's available anywhere.  (Hit their site and look for 'The Big Broadcast').  They always start off with three half-hour shows: 'Yours Truly, Johnny Dollar' (excellent radio drama), 'Dragnet', and 'Gunsmoke'.  The rest of the show is a grab bag.  The Shadow, Boston Blackie, Jack Benny, Fibber McGee and Mollie, X Minus One, Escape, Suspense, Lights Out, I Love a Mystery, Cavalcade of America, and countless more.)

So, Scalia didn't have TV as a kid, but he would have been comfortable with all the concepts.

But that's beside the point.  Scalia is worthless piece of scum who is poisoning this country.  He should do humanity a favor and make like a Norwegian Blue as soon as is humanly - or inhumanly - possible.
 
2013-09-25 11:10:54 PM  

sprawl15: Or perhaps more to the underlying assumptions, do you have a particular reason to think I'm anti-gun?


Only your posts in most gun threads.  Other than that, no.
 
2013-09-26 07:38:00 AM  

dittybopper: sprawl15: Or perhaps more to the underlying assumptions, do you have a particular reason to think I'm anti-gun?

Only your posts in most gun threads.  Other than that, no.


Which posts? The ones like "the AWB is retarded and if you want it back you are retarded too" or "if you want to reduce gun crime, the #1 step would be to legalize drugs and the #2 step would be enforcement of existing laws" or "you guys know massacres are just a tiny fraction of gun crime, right"? Maybe you just think that because I criticized your logic in a gun thread, I am automatically anti-gun.
 
2013-09-26 03:28:58 PM  

sprawl15: dittybopper: sprawl15: Or perhaps more to the underlying assumptions, do you have a particular reason to think I'm anti-gun?

Only your posts in most gun threads.  Other than that, no.

Which posts? The ones like "the AWB is retarded and if you want it back you are retarded too" or "if you want to reduce gun crime, the #1 step would be to legalize drugs and the #2 step would be enforcement of existing laws" or "you guys know massacres are just a tiny fraction of gun crime, right"? Maybe you just think that because I criticized your logic in a gun thread, I am automatically anti-gun.


No, ones like this:

[talking about the Swiss]
If anything, they have a greater love for their weapons than the US, they just don't have the oddly sexual overtones of America's gun fetish.

There is a running theme of underestimation of the extent the gun lobby will outright lie about legislation like Manchin-Toomey (like all the boohoo about how it was really a SECRET MUSLIM REVERSE gun registry).

Now, you may not be really anti-gun per se, but it is obvious that for some reason you have a hard-on for the "gun lobby" in the US.
 
2013-09-26 03:39:44 PM  

dittybopper: No, ones like this:


So nothing, then. You have a post where I say there's a bunch of stupid gun owners on this planet and a post where I say that the NRA is disingenuous. Neither of which have anything to do with being pro or anti gun.

Just say you farked up. That's what adults do. And then stop with the boohoo about how I MUST be anti-gun to say that the NRA is being duplicitous or that a lot of gun owners (like yourself) tend to act like assholes to anyone that disagrees on any level with their Onion-esque thoughts about what gun rights really mean.

dittybopper: Now, you may not be really anti-gun per se, but it is obvious that for some reason you have a hard-on for the "gun lobby" in the US.


You assured me that to have a 'hard-on' for something, one had to actually be sexually attracted to it. Can you present any peer-reviewed studies of my genitals that have shown any evidence of a sexual attraction to the body public of the NRA?
(hint this is another thing you should say 'i farked up' with)
 
2013-09-26 03:45:52 PM  

sprawl15: dittybopper: No, ones like this:

So nothing, then. You have a post where I say there's a bunch of stupid gun owners on this planet and a post where I say that the NRA is disingenuous. Neither of which have anything to do with being pro or anti gun.

Just say you farked up. That's what adults do. And then stop with the boohoo about how I MUST be anti-gun to say that the NRA is being duplicitous or that a lot of gun owners (like yourself) tend to act like assholes to anyone that disagrees on any level with their Onion-esque thoughts about what gun rights really mean.

dittybopper: Now, you may not be really anti-gun per se, but it is obvious that for some reason you have a hard-on for the "gun lobby" in the US.

You assured me that to have a 'hard-on' for something, one had to actually be sexually attracted to it. Can you present any peer-reviewed studies of my genitals that have shown any evidence of a sexual attraction to the body public of the NRA?
(hint this is another thing you should say 'i farked up' with)



i1.ytimg.com

You and I.
 
2013-09-26 03:51:11 PM  

dittybopper: You and I.


"Here is what the Manchin-Toomey amendment actually says."
"You just hate guns."
"Why do you say that?"
"Stupid reasons."
"Then you probably shouldn't say it"
"Time to punch out of this thread too!"
 
2013-09-26 04:15:59 PM  

sprawl15: dittybopper: You and I.

"Here is what the Manchin-Toomey amendment actually says."
"You just hate guns."
"Why do you say that?"
"Stupid reasons."
"Then you probably shouldn't say it"
"Time to punch out of this thread too!"


Actually, I've been a bit more busy than usual, so I can't necessarily put my full effort into farking.  Sucks, I know, but hey, life intrudes.

I've got an open house to attend at the littlebopper's school tonight, and I also have the sweat the field points off my arrows and replace them with broadheads, then sharpen them, because tomorrow is the opening day of bow season.  I have to wash my hunting clothes also, and get the other crap ready so I can be out the door at 5am so I can be in the woods by first light, and then sit and wait until 11 am which is when the trail camera says the deer normally pass by the spot I'm going to hunt.

After hunting tomorrow, I've got a Cub Scout sign-up meeting in the evening, and coming up this weekend I've got an Odyssey of the Mind kick-off meeting with my team and co-coach.  Then, I've got my country's 500th anniversary to plan, my wedding to arrange, my wife to murder and Guilder to frame for it; I'm swamped.
 
2013-09-26 04:28:55 PM  

dittybopper: Actually, I've been a bit more busy than usual, so I can't necessarily put my full effort into farking. Sucks, I know, but hey, life intrudes.


I wouldn't call you out for not posting, life gets in the way. Whatever. But taking the time to write a wall of text to explain why you don't have the time to say "oops i was wrong" is just silly. As is repeating the same outright lies in multiple threads over the past few days. That's what I have a problem with.
 
2013-09-26 08:36:36 PM  

sprawl15: dittybopper: Actually, I've been a bit more busy than usual, so I can't necessarily put my full effort into farking. Sucks, I know, but hey, life intrudes.

I wouldn't call you out for not posting, life gets in the way. Whatever. But taking the time to write a wall of text to explain why you don't have the time to say "oops i was wrong" is just silly. As is repeating the same outright lies in multiple threads over the past few days. That's what I have a problem with.


So you want complete consistence?

Good luck.
 
2013-09-26 08:52:54 PM  

dittybopper: So you want complete consistence?


Nope. Just honest discussion. I mean, I wouldn't spend a wish on it, but it'd be nice.
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report