Author Topic: SCOTUS  (Read 7498 times)

random axe

  • Concerned Netizen
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,733
  • Karma: +92/-20
  • Concern Intensifies
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #15 on: April 22, 2009, 02:26:21 PM »
I'm not against the Second Amendment, but (A) it's retardedly vague and poorly worded (sorry, Founding Fathers) and (B) it's obviously not workable in the broadest senses of "arms" and "not be infringed".  I am utterly unimpressed by interpretations that try to shake the "well-regulated" part, regardless of how they want to interpret the militia part.  Whatever the Founding Fathers may have been, they weren't free-for-all anarchists.

I also think there's no question that a guy walking down a typical urban or suburban street with a gun in hand is going to cause a disturbance -- and I don't think the citizenry is wrong to feel disturbed, either.  And I think there's a broad gray area where bearing arms blends into reckless endangerment.  If you've got your gun with you in public, is it wrong for the police to want to see if the safety's on or the hammer's cocked?  That strikes me as a very legitimate public safety issue.

And if someone has a gun and the police feel a need to confront that person, obviously there's a risk to the police which shouldn't be ignored.  Accordingly, there is, again, a safety issue.

I'm in favor of the right of private gun ownership, but the NRA is a fringe anti-American group, period.  Their leadership is bug-eating nuts.  And the notion that the government could come 'take your guns' is a paranoid fantasy on the order of an invasion of amphibious Jewish yeti from Atlantis.  It's not a question of NRA nuts fighting them off -- your AR-15 is useless against a laser-guided bomb dropped from 15,000 feet up, genius -- but logistics.  Our government is not organized enough to be able to find and confiscate 250 million guns.  It's not going to happen.

flipper

  • Ultimate Pick Up Line
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,255
  • Karma: +128/-54
  • Criticism Completes Me
    • Myspace
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2009, 02:43:37 PM »
...an invasion of amphibious Jewish yeti from Atlantis...

Dang, he's on to us.  Back to the drawing board...
"It all trickles down from the hot sex. I'm not saying you don't need cheese, just that if you concentrate on the hot sex, the cheese will follow. Naturally."--PsiDefect 03-19-2002 11:28 AM

NexR

  • Trusted
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,785
  • Karma: +76/-44
  • Jammin'
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2009, 11:51:29 AM »
Back when I was a kid a friend of mine's house was raided by the cops who were after evidence of a mountain bike theft and chop shop ring that his dad was involved in (this was back when all mountain bikes cost a small fortune).  While there they found a small closet with a good chunk of marijuana, a scale, etc (also his dad's).  I distinctly remember being surprised that the drugs were merely confiscated and no charges filed because the warrant did not specify any suspicion of drug activity.

Later on in college basic law, I recall being very interested in this point because of my friend's experience and asking lots of questions.  This aspect of law is based on the supposition that, "A man's home is his castle," which derives from the American hatred of the English invasion of homes for quartering soldiers, and probably goes back much farther to Magna Carta days (hence the castle reference).  I was told the right to one's own private domain is one of the defining backbones of our legal system, like freedom of religion or speech, although not tauted as much outside of law school.

So apparently at some point in the past the cops were finding flimsy reasons to get warrants to search suspect's homes while actually interested in finding evidence of other crimes, and in keeping with the man's castle principle, ruled that warrants had to be specific.  Now, at the time, I asked professor Soble if that applied to cars and he replied something like, "The law doesn't consider your car part of your castle."

It sounds to me (and I didn't read the decision) like the court just reversed that idea and has expanded much of the protection of our privacy to our vehicles.  Thumbs up from this guy.  I certainly consider the police to have too much power, and fear another J.E. Hoover, or worse, an institutionalized version of him.



As far as strip searches in school: wtf?  Hell no!  Protection of those who have no legal rights is another backbone of the legal system.  Kids (and immigrants fyi) fall into that category.  There's no way that shit will last.



Um, what else has this thread covered?  I've been trying to post in it since the beginning, but was too busy for a while, then FF restarted for an update and lost what I wrote, then business again, then FF crashed and lost what I wrote, then the board flaked out.  Oh yeah:

Firearms carrying: I'm torn both ways on this.  It's probably best to keep it to conceal and carry permits, without legalized brandishing.  I guess there are only a few states that still don't allow it, Illinois being one of them.  Personally, I think people have a right to be armed, a right to protect themselves.  I wouldn't mind if everyone walked around with a small pop gun or whatever.  It'd make everyone be more polite. :D  On the other hand, it could lead us back to all that honor shit with duels and gunslingers and whatnot, which isn't really a great thing.  Anyway, I'm also for very strong gun control laws, and much tighter enforcement.  I don't think anyone going through the proper channels are going to contribute to the urban gangsta problem.
Shake your groove thing.

mo

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,757
  • Karma: +136/-55
    • x
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2009, 01:02:55 PM »
Oh yeah. I was in the process of posting the following when the board started going wacky.

Compare the differences between Georgia and Wisconsin. It's weird that you can't even get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, but you can carry a weapon pretty much anywhere, "as long as you're careful with it"  :P

Georgia's laws are somewhat misleading. To some of you, it might read like the wild west, but really enforcement is really going to vary from one area of the state to another. Riding around in the metro area with a loaded weapon either in the glovebox or in the open is probably going to get you spread eagle on the pavement with a screaming cop pointing his gun at your head. Yeah, you might not get convicted of a crime, but you might get a bullet in the brain. In rural Georgia, as long as you're white and conservative looking, these laws apply.

Quote
Wisconsin

It is unlawful for any person except a peace officer to go armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon.

There is no statutory provision for obtaining a license or permit to carry a concealed weapon. State law does not prohibit the open carrying of a firearm, but a person should exercise caution when carrying a firearm in public.

It is unlawful to go armed with a firearm in any building owned or leased by the state or any political subdivision of the state.



Georgia

It is unlawful to carry a handgun or concealable firearm, openly or concealed, on or about one's person without a license to carry.

Exceptions: No license is required:

      1. To carry a firearm, openly or concealed, in one's home or place of business.

      2. To transport a firearm, unloaded, enclosed in a case and separated from ammunition, provided the possessor is not ineligible to obtain a license to carry.

      3. To transport a loaded firearm in a private motor vehicle, provided it is carried in an open manner fully exposed to view, or is in the vehicle's glove compartment, console, or similar compartment.

      4. To carry a firearm while hunting or fishing or sport shooting, provided the person so carrying has any necessary hunting or fishing license, and has written permission from the owner of the land on which the activity is being conducted, and provided any handgun is carried in an open and fully exposed manner.


A license to carry authorizes a person to carry a handgun on or about his person, openly or in a holster, hipgrip or similar device, in which event the weapon may be concealed by the person's clothing, or a handbag, purse, attache case, briefcase, other closed container, or in any location in a motor vehicle.

The license to carry, valid for five years, is obtained by application under oath to the judge of the probate court of the county of domicile of the applicant. Georgia law specifically provides that the application form "shall not require non-pertinent nor irrelevant data" from the applicant.
It's symbolic of our struggle against reality.

random axe

  • Concerned Netizen
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,733
  • Karma: +92/-20
  • Concern Intensifies
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #19 on: April 28, 2009, 11:16:35 AM »
I've seen at least half a dozen news reports on the recent decision about the FCC and indecent language, and I still can't tell exactly what the court was ruling on.  They specifically declined to decide whether or not the FCC rules are unconstitutional.  I think maybe they were just deciding if the FCC was, in principle, rational in how they set up their policy for restricting indecent language -- ie, whether the agency had followed due process in coming up with the policy, but not whether or not the policy was OK.  (They told the federal appeals court to decide the consitutionality issue.)

Scalia loses another hundred points for his retarded claim that all uses of the F-word and the S-word (as they said) are necessarily indecent because their "power to insult and offend derives from [their] sexual meaning".  This is obviously outside his expertise and is patently wrong, as any number of sociologists, psychologists, neurologists, and linguists would be happy to explain to him.  The power of a word to offend obviously exists at least as much in the mind of the person being offended as of the person using the word, anyway.

But, in any case, the standard (constitutional or not . . . mostly not) is allegedly public decency, even if we're talking (as the justices were) about protecting children in private homes, not offensiveness.  The feds have a tenuous claim to maintaining public decency but not to protecting people from being offended.  I mean, obviously, the very notion of the FCC trying to enforce an internally devised and arbitrary standard of public conduct is offensive to many Americans, but is the Supreme Court going to protect us from that on that basis?  Somehow, I doubt it.

Tripper

  • Trusted
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 944
  • Karma: +84/-21
  • Go ahead, make my millennium
    • Benson-Photo
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2009, 02:49:31 PM »
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/us/politics/26scotus.html?hp

The recent decisions of a court that is supposed to be weighted far to the right are getting interesting.  So far this is the second total no-brainer that they have had an 8-1 on.  I mean, come on, who thought that the strip searching of a teenager by school administration would even be REMOTELY legal?  I did like that they pointed out that the officials couldn't be sued personally because the law was vague (paraphrasing), but the school system was wide open.

Some congresspeople from Arizona need to sponsor a bill closing that hole.

flipper

  • Ultimate Pick Up Line
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,255
  • Karma: +128/-54
  • Criticism Completes Me
    • Myspace
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2009, 04:45:37 PM »
Close the hole to cavity searches :bolt:
"It all trickles down from the hot sex. I'm not saying you don't need cheese, just that if you concentrate on the hot sex, the cheese will follow. Naturally."--PsiDefect 03-19-2002 11:28 AM

random axe

  • Concerned Netizen
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,733
  • Karma: +92/-20
  • Concern Intensifies
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2009, 05:22:54 PM »
Quote
I mean, come on, who thought that the strip searching of a teenager by school administration would even be REMOTELY legal?

Clarence Thomas, as it turns out.  Some of his comments on this case (which I saw elsewhere) were a tad peculiar -- he seemed to be saying that the SC can't make rulings based on what ought to be common sense and that the Constitution doesn't apply to schools.

This is one of those loco parentis issues where common sense and What They Could Have Done Instead are useful tools for deciding where the boundaries are.  I mean, if you're the parent, you can strip-search your own kid if you feel it's warranted, for instance.  But these school officials could have called the kid's own parents, and they apparently didn't even try -- even though they waited hours before they searched her.  That's just idiotic.  And, frankly, if I were a school official and I felt a strip-search was warranted . . . I'd call the cops and let them handle it.

So the SC ruled that the search was illegal but that the school officials couldn't be sued for invasion of privacy.  OK.  Sue them for sexual assault.  If I were that girl's parent, that's the angle I'd be taking.

Hedaira

  • Trusted
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,032
  • Karma: +72/-11
  • Tit Critic
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2009, 07:33:33 PM »
Thomas is a fucknut.
"After walking away from the other people backstage, Justin Bieber found a place where we could be alone -- a bathroom. We went inside and immediately his personality changed drastically. He began touching me and repeatedly said he wanted to fuck the shit out of me."

Encino Man

  • Trusted
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,324
  • Karma: +40/-7
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2009, 07:56:52 PM »
I would never, ever strip a kid that wasn't mine. Not just because it's fucking tacky and creepy but the stigma of being a man stripping a boy. The officials are lucky they were women doing it to a girl. If it had been men stripping boys they'd never work as educators again.

Tripper

  • Trusted
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 944
  • Karma: +84/-21
  • Go ahead, make my millennium
    • Benson-Photo
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #25 on: June 26, 2009, 12:48:46 PM »
School Pays Educator Falsely Charged In ‘Sexting’ Probe

People doing the right thing and correcting injustice?  Unpossible!

random axe

  • Concerned Netizen
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,733
  • Karma: +92/-20
  • Concern Intensifies
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #26 on: May 17, 2010, 01:19:28 PM »
How ugly is this?  I side with Thomas and Scalia against the rest of them, the Obama Admin, and Kagan, his new nominee, who argued the case and won.

The issue is whether the feds can indefinitely imprison sex offenders at their own discretion on the grounds that they might still represent a danger to society after their court sentences are up.

OK, if these people are dangerous, then they should be kept away from the public.  I agree with that.  But I do think that this is a violation of due process and a hell of a bad precedent, basically in the same vein as preventive detention and grabbing and locking up possible terrorism suspects without trial.  It's no good.

This has been an issue basically forever, and the states and feds have had PLENTY of time to come up with a constitutional way to do this.  There are plenty of ways, such as just changing the sentencing rules.  But you can't say that someone's sentenced to three years and then have some official decide that when the three years are up, too bad, we're keeping you for the rest of your life.  Hell, I'd be OK with an indefinite sentence.  That's basically what they do with people who are ruled criminally insane, which is basically what they're saying the problem is in these cases.

You have to have a real, established, consistent, and accountable process for this.  You can't just have the warden walk down a line of sex offenders and use a gut feeling, and you can't let the DA's office decide.  Judges or psychiatrists, or both.  Set it up and administer it properly, or don't do it.  Establish a federal institution to send these people to, if the states can't get their acts together.

And the SCOTUS should be ashamed for supporting this ad hoc police state bullshit.  Especially since it's a lazy policy that's simply not necessary.  But the idea that the feds can do any old thing so long as it's in the interest of protecting society is just feeble and un-American.  Lame.

flipper

  • Ultimate Pick Up Line
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,255
  • Karma: +128/-54
  • Criticism Completes Me
    • Myspace
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #27 on: May 17, 2010, 03:07:47 PM »
Concur
"It all trickles down from the hot sex. I'm not saying you don't need cheese, just that if you concentrate on the hot sex, the cheese will follow. Naturally."--PsiDefect 03-19-2002 11:28 AM

Dr. Leonard HmofCoy

  • I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,673
  • Karma: +205/-69
  • His BRAIN is gone
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #28 on: May 17, 2010, 03:43:04 PM »
SCROTUMS
"Parasitic wasps laying eggs in other insects is a better love story than Twilight." - :bitzero:
"Anyhow, it was the best sentient food movie since Killer Tomatoes Eat France." - :flipper:
"lee marvin in drag is no way to spread the gospel, son." - TFJ
"It failed. My enemies have been purged." - Sidious
"It's not like there was ever a time I didn't think Rudy Giuliani was a smug gibbering imbecile." - random axe
"*drags taint* Oh cool, I didn't know you could do that." - mo.d

mo

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,757
  • Karma: +136/-55
    • x
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #29 on: May 17, 2010, 04:26:34 PM »
Yeah, concur even without considering their history of defining "sex offender".

Politics.  :eyeroll:

They aren't trying to apply this to murderers, just sex offenders?
It's symbolic of our struggle against reality.