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 14
    More: Interesting, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court, NSA, Ginsberg, Edward Snowden, National Press, constitutions  
•       •       •

3179 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Apr 2014 at 9:49 AM (13 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-04-18 10:01:44 AM
2 votes:
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 09:14:34 AM
2 votes:
Good News Everyone, the modern Supreme Court has decided that only corporations have a right to privacy.
2014-04-18 01:52:03 PM
1 votes:

Dr Dreidel: They don't HAVE to invalidate anything. SCOTUS has agreed to review the law(s) (so it seems), which means, theoretically, that they COULD invalidate those laws.


Sure, but in this case we're not talking about invalidating a law - we're talking about (as the link was intended to point out) overturning precedent set by a previous Supreme Court ruling. It could happen, but then again, they could overturn Roe v. Wade too. I doubt whether any of these cases will reach the Supreme Court to begin with so it's all probably moot anyway,

People who are upset about metadata collection would be better off accepting that it's not going to happen (and more broadly, disabusing themselves of the notion that there's any Constitutional issue to begin with), and focusing purely on petitioning Congress to change the relevant laws themselves.
2014-04-18 12:54:42 PM
1 votes:

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 you're being much too fatalistic here. I share many of your concerns about the skimpy force too many courts assign to certain fundamental rights, but it has always been thus. You mention the 4th Amendment - until the exclusionary rule came along in 1914, freedom from unreasonable searches was utterly unenforceable, and until it was incorporated on the states in 1961, it remained generally unenforceable. Coerced confessions were admissible as a matter of federal constitutional law until 1897. If you think living in the age of the PATRIOT Act sucks (and it does, to be sure), it's arguably better than living under any of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Representative government is kind of like marriage - it's not a goal, a thing you can master and then forget about; it's day-to-day work, and sometimes it sucks. The tension between liberty and order has always been and will always be a constant theme in our history. Each of us is called upon to fight the good fight in that conflict, regardless of which side we favor (and, for the record, I'm mostly on your side).
2014-04-18 12:32:57 PM
1 votes:
is that the same bought-off Supreme court that says corporations are people and money is free speech?

/yeah, bye bye miss America
2014-04-18 09:43:12 AM
1 votes:
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 09:39:09 AM
1 votes:
That's pretty slick for a group that doesn't allow cameras in the room, infringing on their privacy.
2014-04-18 09:34:07 AM
1 votes:
"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 09:28:40 AM
1 votes:

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 09:24:38 AM
1 votes:
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 09:22:56 AM
1 votes:

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 09:22:25 AM
1 votes:

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 09:13:25 AM
1 votes:
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 08:34:48 AM
1 votes:
It's almost like that's their job or something.
 
Displayed 14 of 14 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report