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)   SCOTUS admits, sadly, that they're probably gonna have to decide just how constitutional your right to privacy really is   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 109
    More: Interesting, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court, NSA, Ginsberg, Edward Snowden, National Press, constitutions  
•       •       •

3185 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Apr 2014 at 9:49 AM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-18 08:34:48 AM  
It's almost like that's their job or something.
 
2014-04-18 08:47:37 AM  
Why does SCOTUS hate Obozo?
 
2014-04-18 09:13:25 AM  
oh that's easy - we don't HAVE a right to privacy.  this country has been not so quietly eroding the 4th and 5th amendments for quite some time now.  we should just man up and invalidate 'em.  at least then we'd be honest about the direction we've been taking for the past 40 odd years.  once we get rid of those two pesky amendments, then we can work on getting rid of the 1st and 2nd.  then everyone will be happy!  we'll all have the government and society we said we've wanted for years.
 
2014-04-18 09:14:34 AM  
Good News Everyone, the modern Supreme Court has decided that only corporations have a right to privacy.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-18 09:15:45 AM  

Weaver95: oh that's easy - we don't HAVE a right to privacy.  this country has been not so quietly eroding the 4th and 5th amendments for quite some time now.  we should just man up and invalidate 'em.  at least then we'd be honest about the direction we've been taking for the past 40 odd years.  once we get rid of those two pesky amendments, then we can work on getting rid of the 1st and 2nd.  then everyone will be happy!  we'll all have the government and society we said we've wanted for years.


No, they just aren't absolute and unlimited.  They never were. they're just like any other right.
 
2014-04-18 09:20:56 AM  
Full text of constitution, ctrl-F "privacy"
No results found.
 
2014-04-18 09:22:25 AM  

vpb: Weaver95: oh that's easy - we don't HAVE a right to privacy.  this country has been not so quietly eroding the 4th and 5th amendments for quite some time now.  we should just man up and invalidate 'em.  at least then we'd be honest about the direction we've been taking for the past 40 odd years.  once we get rid of those two pesky amendments, then we can work on getting rid of the 1st and 2nd.  then everyone will be happy!  we'll all have the government and society we said we've wanted for years.

No, they just aren't absolute and unlimited.  They never were. they're just like any other right.


right - our 4th and 5th amendments are to be as narrowly construed as is humanly possible.  meanwhile, we expand the reach and privilege of government while limiting the ability of citizens to legally protest/petition for redress.  bonus points for curtailing oversight and limiting public commentary - hells, lets just make the whole thing classified and beat the ever loving shiat outta anyone who blows the whistle on just how invasive we really are towards innocent civilians.

And then we will all finally be free....
 
2014-04-18 09:22:56 AM  

nekom: Full text of constitution, ctrl-F "privacy"
No results found.


Not all rights are explicitly enumerated.  There are derived rights.

Maybe we should amend it to include a new explicit, enumerated right.
 
2014-04-18 09:23:27 AM  

vpb: Weaver95: oh that's easy - we don't HAVE a right to privacy.  this country has been not so quietly eroding the 4th and 5th amendments for quite some time now.  we should just man up and invalidate 'em.  at least then we'd be honest about the direction we've been taking for the past 40 odd years.  once we get rid of those two pesky amendments, then we can work on getting rid of the 1st and 2nd.  then everyone will be happy!  we'll all have the government and society we said we've wanted for years.

No, they just aren't absolute and unlimited.  They never were. they're just like any other right.


Like many libertarians, he gets off on what he thinks the Constitution says he has the right to do. Stop killing his sexual fantasies because he'll need them once he's moved into his government-proof shack.
 
2014-04-18 09:24:38 AM  
What I fear is that, regardless of rulings, it will continue and just be more covert and thorough.  NSA's not going to just throw up its hands and say, "OK, you got us!"
 
2014-04-18 09:28:40 AM  

Diogenes: What I fear is that, regardless of rulings, it will continue and just be more covert and thorough.  NSA's not going to just throw up its hands and say, "OK, you got us!"


Ask Putin to send Snowden back, you know, when he's not throwing softball questions to a dictator on Russian TV to prove how evil America is.
 
2014-04-18 09:34:07 AM  
"Rights" don't exist.  They're a philosophical construct.
George Carlin understood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hWiBt-pqp0E #t =257
 
2014-04-18 09:37:06 AM  

Rev. Skarekroe: "Rights" don't exist.  They're a philosophical construct.
George Carlin understood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hWiBt-pqp0E #t =257


Neither do "ethics" for that matter.
 
2014-04-18 09:39:09 AM  
That's pretty slick for a group that doesn't allow cameras in the room, infringing on their privacy.
 
2014-04-18 09:40:33 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: That's pretty slick for a group that doesn't allow cameras in the room, infringing on their privacy.


It's almost like putting a camera on someone changes how they act, which is always something you want in a judge.
 
2014-04-18 09:43:12 AM  
Why won't Scalia die already? I feel like there's this glut of assholes that haven't died. OK so you throw me a bone w/a Fred Phelps once in a while, but his crazy family lives on. Gah.
 
2014-04-18 09:43:32 AM  

WTF Indeed: I_Am_Weasel: That's pretty slick for a group that doesn't allow cameras in the room, infringing on their privacy.

It's almost like putting a camera on someone changes how they act, which is always something you want in a judge.


Granted.  But at least for Scalia's part, he doesn't allow his public appearances to be recorded.  Unless he's doing TV interviews and the like.
 
2014-04-18 09:44:16 AM  
If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have to worry about privacy. The only Amendment that counts is the 2nd. Yeee hawww!
 
2014-04-18 09:50:58 AM  

Mugato: If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have to worry about privacy. The only Amendment that counts is the 2nd. Yeee hawww!


But you shouldn't be on any lists that tell people you're using the 2nd amendment.  That's an invasion of privacy.
 
2014-04-18 09:53:50 AM  

Weaver95: And then we will all finally be free....


Nah, we'll just be safe from some goat herder with an AK-47 who is half way around the world and from that guy  selling debbil weed in the bad part of town.
 
2014-04-18 09:54:09 AM  
I think at least two of them are on record saying there is no such right.
 
2014-04-18 09:56:17 AM  
in 'murica, deciding What is Constitutional or not is whatever Big Business/the Richest 2% decide it is.  (seeing as how they own the surpreme court)

what the Sheeple think is irrelevant.


and they'll call that Democracy.  and the Sheeple will believe it.
 
2014-04-18 10:00:03 AM  
They were responding to questions posed by journalist Marvin Kalb about whether the court would take up cases arising from the recent disclosures about NSA surveillance, most notably by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

Democratic party apologists have claimed everyone knew about the surveillance for a decade and Snowden had nothing to add.
 
2014-04-18 10:00:17 AM  
""The institution that will decide that is the institution least qualified to decide it," Scalia said. The legal question is about "balancing the emergency against the intrusion" on the individual, he said. "

Well, not like that has stopped him from being concerned to decide other issues he either doesn't understand or has conflicts of interest on......
 
2014-04-18 10:00:31 AM  
Simple, don't ever expect privacy anywhere ever, even in your own home.
 
2014-04-18 10:01:44 AM  
The idea of personal privacy in the information age is laughable. The government doesn't need to spy on us. All they have to do is buy our information from telecoms, credit card companies, social media sites and and internet providers. They are all perfectly willing to sell that information and you can come up with a pretty thorough picture of our lives from that info. If the government was spying on us by getting our meta data, it's a piss poor way to do it.
 
2014-04-18 10:04:26 AM  

Headso: They were responding to questions posed by journalist Marvin Kalb about whether the court would take up cases arising from the recent disclosures about NSA surveillance, most notably by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

Democratic party apologists have claimed everyone knew about the surveillance for a decade


This is true

 and Snowden had nothing to add.

This is not.
 
2014-04-18 10:08:29 AM  

Rev. Skarekroe: "Rights" don't exist.  They're a philosophical construct.
George Carlin understood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hWiBt-pqp0E #t =257


Indeed.  You have rights to the extent society (and those who influence it) says you have rights.  It's only recently (last few hundred years) we've been able to talk seriously the fiction of some Platonic universal human rights that exists independent of our imperfect implementation of it.  It's a nice cultural meme, and probably a necessary one for progress, but deep down you know it's a statement of aspiration, not truth.
 
2014-04-18 10:14:21 AM  
"The institution that will decide that is the institution least qualified to decide it," Scalia said.

If only we had a system with procedures to handle new cases, based upon the law and previous decisions. Oh well, nevermind then.
 
2014-04-18 10:14:38 AM  

Weaver95: right - our 4th and 5th amendments are to be as narrowly construed as is humanly possible.  meanwhile, we expand the reach and privilege of government while limiting the ability of citizens to legally protest/petition for redress.  bonus points for curtailing oversight and limiting public commentary - hells, lets just make the whole thing classified and beat the ever loving shiat outta anyone who blows the whistle on just how invasive we really are towards innocent civilians.

And then we will all finally be free..


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-04-18 10:22:04 AM  
"Hmm.  Checks from Google, Facebook, and a death threat from the NSA.  I'm thinkin, "none."  How 'bout you, Clarence?"
 
2014-04-18 10:24:06 AM  

Tarl3k: Weaver95: right - our 4th and 5th amendments are to be as narrowly construed as is humanly possible.  meanwhile, we expand the reach and privilege of government while limiting the ability of citizens to legally protest/petition for redress.  bonus points for curtailing oversight and limiting public commentary - hells, lets just make the whole thing classified and beat the ever loving shiat outta anyone who blows the whistle on just how invasive we really are towards innocent civilians.

And then we will all finally be free..

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 482x636]


lh6.googleusercontent.com

lh4.googleusercontent.com

I swear I will never tire of this meme!
 
2014-04-18 10:25:01 AM  
We gonna get Scaliaed
 
2014-04-18 10:25:49 AM  
I agree with the justices in the article.  They know very little about cutting edge technology and its vast implications, yet they are the ones making arbitrary decisions about whether or not vacuuming up enormous quantities of data on citizens not accused of a crime is reasonable.  I appreciate that they feel nervous about deciding it.
 
2014-04-18 10:29:11 AM  

Clever Neologism: Rev. Skarekroe: "Rights" don't exist.  They're a philosophical construct.
George Carlin understood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hWiBt-pqp0E #t =257

Indeed.  You have rights to the extent society (and those who influence it) says you have rights.  It's only recently (last few hundred years) we've been able to talk seriously the fiction of some Platonic universal human rights that exists independent of our imperfect implementation of it.  It's a nice cultural meme, and probably a necessary one for progress, but deep down you know it's a statement of aspiration, not truth.


Our "inalienable rights" are protected by a system that operates by the "consent of the governed", which frequently employs people and means that alienate our rights (see: Louisiana cops arresting people for "violating" a law that cannot legally be enforced).

It's fictions all the way down.

// or "social constructs"
// fark, think about the rules of driving - those are "fictions" as well, and we trust thousands of other people to follow those rules (and almost 90+% of them do)
 
2014-04-18 10:31:15 AM  

WTF Indeed: Diogenes: What I fear is that, regardless of rulings, it will continue and just be more covert and thorough.  NSA's not going to just throw up its hands and say, "OK, you got us!"

Ask Putin to send Snowden back, you know, when he's not throwing softball questions to a dictator on Russian TV to prove how evil America is.


Yes, because that's exactly what Snowden did.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/18/vladimir-putin- su rveillance-us-leaders-snowden
 
2014-04-18 10:38:57 AM  
Corporate abuse of my personal data bugs me more than anything the gov't is doing.
 
2014-04-18 10:39:42 AM  

Headso: Democratic party apologists Basement dwellers who watch too many spy movies have claimed everyone knew about the surveillance for a decade and Snowden had nothing to add.

 
2014-04-18 10:42:30 AM  

Weaver95: oh that's easy - we don't HAVE a right to privacy.  this country has been not so quietly eroding the 4th and 5th amendments for quite some time now.  we should just man up and invalidate 'em.  at least then we'd be honest about the direction we've been taking for the past 40 odd years.  once we get rid of those two pesky amendments, then we can work on getting rid of the 1st and 2nd.  then everyone will be happy!  we'll all have the government and society we said we've wanted for years.


^ This.  In case you did not know it, any cop in the country can stop you on the street, take all your cash, and keep it for himself.
 
2014-04-18 10:43:06 AM  

vpb: Weaver95: oh that's easy - we don't HAVE a right to privacy.  this country has been not so quietly eroding the 4th and 5th amendments for quite some time now.  we should just man up and invalidate 'em.  at least then we'd be honest about the direction we've been taking for the past 40 odd years.  once we get rid of those two pesky amendments, then we can work on getting rid of the 1st and 2nd.  then everyone will be happy!  we'll all have the government and society we said we've wanted for years.

No, they just aren't absolute and unlimited.  They never were. they're just like any other right.


Except for the cops stealing all your cash on sight, of course.
 
2014-04-18 10:43:46 AM  

nekom: Full text of constitution, ctrl-F "privacy"
No results found.


Ah, but I do have the 9th Amendment and court precedent that tells me that unenumerated right lives in the words of other amendments. Constitutional law is more than just the words written in the document, chief.
 
2014-04-18 10:45:15 AM  

WTF Indeed: vpb: Weaver95: oh that's easy - we don't HAVE a right to privacy.  this country has been not so quietly eroding the 4th and 5th amendments for quite some time now.  we should just man up and invalidate 'em.  at least then we'd be honest about the direction we've been taking for the past 40 odd years.  once we get rid of those two pesky amendments, then we can work on getting rid of the 1st and 2nd.  then everyone will be happy!  we'll all have the government and society we said we've wanted for years.

No, they just aren't absolute and unlimited.  They never were. they're just like any other right.

Like many libertarians, he gets off on what he thinks the Constitution says he has the right to do. Stop killing his sexual fantasies because he'll need them once he's moved into his government-proof shack.


You are blind and ignorant.
 
2014-04-18 10:51:32 AM  

Headso: They were responding to questions posed by journalist Marvin Kalb about whether the court would take up cases arising from the recent disclosures about NSA surveillance, most notably by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

Democratic party apologists have claimed everyone knew about the surveillance for a decade and Snowden had nothing to add.


If you were really surprised about what Snowden had revealed, then you weren't paying attention for the last decade.
 
2014-04-18 10:52:00 AM  

Xythero: Headso: Democratic party apologists Basement dwellers who watch too many spy movies have claimed everyone knew about the surveillance for a decade and Snowden had nothing to add.


No, he had it right the first time - or did you forget all those protests by leftists (who are deafeningly silent now) when it was a Republican administration doing the spying?
 
2014-04-18 10:52:42 AM  

Mugato: If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have to worry about privacy. The only Amendment that counts is the 2nd. Yeee hawww!


And the 3rd. Don' want no gubbamint men takin' over mah guest room!
 
2014-04-18 10:54:26 AM  

Communist_Manifesto: WTF Indeed: Diogenes: What I fear is that, regardless of rulings, it will continue and just be more covert and thorough.  NSA's not going to just throw up its hands and say, "OK, you got us!"

Ask Putin to send Snowden back, you know, when he's not throwing softball questions to a dictator on Russian TV to prove how evil America is.

Yes, because that's exactly what Snowden did.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/18/vladimir-putin- su rveillance-us-leaders-snowden


Thank you, I thought I was going to have to bust this out.
 
2014-04-18 10:55:23 AM  

Obscure Login: Headso: They were responding to questions posed by journalist Marvin Kalb about whether the court would take up cases arising from the recent disclosures about NSA surveillance, most notably by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

Democratic party apologists have claimed everyone knew about the surveillance for a decade and Snowden had nothing to add.

If you were really surprised about what Snowden had revealed, then you weren't paying attention for the last decade.


If you are pretending he didn't start a dialogue on spying that didn't exist before you are a democratic party apologist.
 
2014-04-18 11:04:14 AM  

Communist_Manifesto: WTF Indeed: Diogenes: What I fear is that, regardless of rulings, it will continue and just be more covert and thorough.  NSA's not going to just throw up its hands and say, "OK, you got us!"

Ask Putin to send Snowden back, you know, when he's not throwing softball questions to a dictator on Russian TV to prove how evil America is.

Yes, because that's exactly what Snowden did.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/18/vladimir-putin- su rveillance-us-leaders-snowden


It's called a softball question. "Hey, do you do the same thing that America does?" "Of course not! That would be immoral of me! Now let me go back to invading a country by proxy!"

Are you really that naive to think that Putin, or any quasi-dictator is going to answer unapproved questions on live TV?
 
2014-04-18 11:05:36 AM  

Weaver95: oh that's easy - we don't HAVE a right to privacy.  this country has been not so quietly eroding the 4th and 5th amendments for quite some time now.  we should just man up and invalidate 'em.  at least then we'd be honest about the direction we've been taking for the past 40 odd years.  once we get rid of those two pesky amendments, then we can work on getting rid of the 1st and 2nd.  then everyone will be happy!  we'll all have the government and society we said we've wanted for years.


I think what happened is that we went from assuming everyone had rights that weren't otherwise mentioned in the Constitution to assuming that you only have a right if it's in the Constitution.

I'd blame the PATRIOT Act, but I'm sure someone will point out something earlier that started the slide.
 
2014-04-18 11:12:27 AM  

WTF Indeed: It's almost like that's their job or something.


Let me predict -- Corporations have a right to privacy, individuals don't.

Well, some individuals don't; naturally politicians have a right to privacy.  Oh, and corporate executives of course.  And any type of cop.  And celebrities we like.
 
Displayed 50 of 109 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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