http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120402/us-supreme-court-strip-search/

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that jailers may subject people arrested for minor offenses to invasive strip searches, siding with security needs over privacy rights. By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled against a New Jersey man who complained that strip searches in two county jails violated his civil rights. Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion for the court's conservative justices that when people are going to be put into the general jail population, "courts must defer to the judgment of correctional officials unless the record contains substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified response to problems of jail security." In a dissenting opinion joined by the court's liberals, Justice Stephen Breyer said strip searches improperly "subject those arrested for minor offenses to serious invasions of their personal privacy." Breyer said jailers ought to have a reasonable suspicion someone may be hiding something before conducting a strip search. Albert Florence was forced to undress and submit to strip searches following his arrest on a warrant for an unpaid fine, though the fine actually had been paid. Even if the warrant had been valid, failure to pay a fine is not a crime in New Jersey."

Quote :

"Six days later, Florence had not received a hearing and remained in custody. Transferred to another county jail in Newark, he was strip-searched again. The next day, a judge dismissed all charges. "

4/2/2012 1:04:31 PM

I don't have a problem with the search (which was the issue before the court) as much as the dude being arrested in the first place...Now that was some bs.

4/2/2012 1:44:53 PM

I don't feel bad at all in saying I hope Scalia fucking keels over tomorrow. Dude is way too fucking political and outspoken to be on the Supreme Court.

4/2/2012 6:54:58 PM

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/funniest-supreme-court-health-care-moments-audio

4/2/2012 10:34:16 PM

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/combative-obama-warns-supreme-court-health-law-192629533.html

to be a law professor he sure does have a problem with those pesky checks and balances.

4/2/2012 11:35:09 PM

Not googling. Did he win anything out of the lawsuit? Shouldn't have been arrested in the first place.

4/3/2012 1:44:31 AM

wait. this is about searches of inmates? really? you're in jail and have an expectation to NOT be searched? ahahaha.

4/3/2012 8:14:03 AM

liberals have no problem searching your anus for a gun though, buddy.

4/3/2012 9:15:16 AM

Quote :

"wait. this is about searches of inmates? really? you're in jail and have an expectation to NOT be searched? ahahaha."

To be fair, the Federal prison system and 11 state systems already ban the use of excessive search for those arrested on minor offenses so the idea isn't too far fetched.

4/3/2012 9:52:16 AM

This guy was falsely imprisoned. They strip searched him TWICE and let him go a few hours later without pressing any charges.

Someone in some branch of the government needs to clamp down on this police state bullshit. Scalia, Roberts, and Alito (Thomas too) are too worried about cops possibly losing their jobs to uphold the civil rights of civilians. Apparently you have nothing to worry about as long as you're not doing anything wrong except for sometimes.

4/3/2012 3:25:29 PM

Quote :

"Mr. Florence is handcuffed, strip-searched TWICE, jailed for a week with no bail (HE'S A FLIGHT RISK! NO BAIL, BECAUSE HE ALREADY SKIPPED ON A TICKET!). Finally sees judge. Is able to prove that in fact HE PAID THE TICKET! On time. Police just failed to record the payment. Whoopsie daisy, sorry, fella. Have a good day. The state is remarkably incompetent, and indifferent to the consequences of that incompetence, given that if YOU make a mistake the consequences are enormous. Now, the Supreme Court case is about the strip-searching. I'm afraid, on that narrow question, the court got it right. If (IF!) you are going to put the guy in jail, for a week, for a nonviolent traffic ticket (which he had actually already paid, but never mind for a minute, suppose he hadn't), then you HAVE to strip search him. It's the logic of domination and humiliation in the prison system. The strip search is a consequence of the dangerous security situation in the jail where the state is choosing to hold this person. In jail, you lose the presumption of innocence. The real questions didn't come up in the court case. Why did police stop a black couple just because they had a BMW, and then searched for something, anything, to nail the guy. Then why send him to jail, with no way out, for a week. And why not keep better records, if the stakes are really this high? If failing to pay a ticket is worth a week in jail, away from work and family, what should be the punishment for failing to record a valid and timely payment for a ticket? Shouldn't it be symmetric? The REAL question, then, is why all our sensitive leftist friends put so much faith in a state that routinely does the sorts of things described above. I bet (paraphrasing Edmund Burke) it's because you fall out only with the abuses, and think that the thing itself is good. The THING! The thing itself is the abuse! Why do you people love the state so much? It doesn't love you."

http://mungowitzend.blogspot.com/2012/04/strip-search.html

4/4/2012 5:53:16 PM

4/4/2012 10:34:53 PM

Quote :

"But there's a strong case to be made that Obama should run against the Supreme Court however the health-care case turns out, and that his campaign should begin that effort today. He should run, specifically, against the five justices on the Court who span the spectrum from conservative to very conservative: Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/why-obama-should-run-against-the-supreme-court/255497/#

[Edited on April 6, 2012 at 9:14 PM. Reason : .]

4/6/2012 9:13:31 PM

Scalia is such a hypocritical bag of shit

Quote :

"I don't feel bad at all in saying I hope Scalia fucking keels over tomorrow."

4/6/2012 9:19:49 PM

wait, does anyone think they actually have credibility after citizens united? the GOP primary shit show clearly shows what that was the dumbest fucking ruling in decades.

4/6/2012 10:34:45 PM

Because apparently having a right to speak is dumb?

4/7/2012 6:54:38 AM

lol

corporations are people, too, my friend



it's nice to meet one of the 17%-20% of people who think that was a good ruling

[Edited on April 7, 2012 at 8:56 AM. Reason : .]

4/7/2012 8:55:12 AM

Corporations are not people. People that just happen to work at corporations are people. And even if 80% of people think it is good to criminalize speech they might disagree with, that does not make it so.

Bad laws are often passed with 80+% support. But when those bad laws happen to conflict with the constitution, thankfully the court manages to strike down at least some of them.

[Edited on April 8, 2012 at 12:19 AM. Reason : .,.]

4/8/2012 12:17:46 AM

4/8/2012 12:54:22 AM

Wait a minute, you're telling me that the 5 Supreme court justices most likely to espouse conservative values, the core of which is personal liberty and freedom, voted to make strip searches for minor crimes legal?

Color me surprised.

4/8/2012 2:06:30 AM

Supreme Court Agrees to Reconsider Citizens United

http://www.newser.com/story/143671/supreme-court-agrees-to-reconsider-citizens-united.html

4/9/2012 8:54:00 PM

i always read this as scrotum credibility watch.

4/10/2012 11:20:00 AM

Scalia and Thomas need to fucking die and die soon.

6/26/2012 6:49:46 PM

I don't know if there's ever been a time where the Supreme Court was as unpopular as it it right now. Completely destroying any confidence left in the American government.

6/26/2012 9:07:30 PM

is that thing in the back row an elf?

6/27/2012 7:10:59 AM

Quote :

"I don't know if there's ever been a time where the Supreme Court was as unpopular as it it right now. Completely destroying any confidence left in the American government."

Couldn't agree more, though I will have to add that there wasn't much confidence to begin with but that's beside the point.

6/27/2012 7:58:06 AM

lol, supreme court popularity rating.

heres a thought:

maybe their popularity rating would be higher if it wasnt always unpopular things brought before them.

see thats the point, really. why would popular legislation ever reach them? you guys are fucking idiots, and at least one of you calls me a hack.

and you dont even know the purpose of the supreme court. all you see is 5 conservatives destroying obamas last chance at reelection or any kind of legacy tomorrow.

as hilarious as i find that maybe you should dive deeper into these "popularity" stats and find that liberals and conservatives disapprove of the supremes in about the same proportion.

in other words are government is working perfectly fine (except for goddamn congress).

i swear if this was 4th grade and there were governmental official trading cards you guys would be collecting and fighting them. this really is all these people mean to you.

6/27/2012 8:42:09 AM

Perhaps confidence would have been a better word to use. Either way its at an all time low. The judicial branch is supposed to be an impartial arbiter of government. What we have right now is a highly partisan, ideologically divisive extension of the two major parties. It's absolutely disgusting to watch. Honestly, I'm more unhappy about the montana campaign funding issue they ruled on Monday than anything.

And tons of popular cases get brought before then on a regular basis. Their job is not only to determine tough cases, but to provide uniformity in decisions all over the country as well as to set precedent on new issues, which may or may not be popular. Once again, you have failed to demonstrate a cogent understanding of the issue at hand and succeeded only in impaling yourself on my colossal e-peen.

6/27/2012 9:19:57 AM

Quote :

"What we have right now is a highly partisan"

you only think this because they've struck down unconsitutional laws you liked.

6/27/2012 10:01:34 AM

There are some absurd opinions from both sides, but what makes me lose faith are the assholes, LIKE SCALIA, who don't even stick by their own principles.

6/27/2012 10:13:53 AM

They are supposed to IGNORE their personal principals and biases and stick to the fucking constitution.

6/27/2012 1:16:09 PM

Quote :

"stick to the fucking constitution"

The Constitution is vague enough to admit various interpretations of some important provisions, and guess what ideas guide those interpretations...

6/27/2012 3:17:35 PM

Well Scalia contends that he is an originalist. But that excuse doesn't really explain how he can extrapolate the word 'people' into the word 'corporations.' he likes to hide behind his bullshit shield of original intent but he's more than willing to stray from it in order to make a personally favorable ruling. Absolute bullshit partisan hack.

6/27/2012 3:31:24 PM

do you really not understand it or are you just towing the party line?

corporations are groups of poople. people dont lose their right to speech when they form groups.

if you want to ban group speech you should start with political parties.

6/27/2012 3:45:21 PM

^ are you sure that's what the SCOTUS rationale was? because that reasoning doesn't make sense.

Quote :

"They are supposed to IGNORE their personal principals and biases and stick to the fucking constitution."

LOL, u dumb.

[Edited on June 27, 2012 at 4:00 PM. Reason : ]

6/27/2012 3:59:40 PM

pretty sure (lol). but its prefectly fine reasoning. you dont ban speech from other orgs, so why corps or unions?

6/27/2012 4:04:22 PM

I have a problem because the SC has said that people=corporations and free speech=unlimited campaign contributions. I think that ruling is downright heinous. It's also no surprise that the one party that has so far benefitted the most from that ruling is also the one that appointed all 5 of the justices who voted for it. And the key piece of legislation they have spent the better part of five years trying to strike down was a hugely popular bi-partisan bill that was intended to stamp out corruption.

So yeah, I think this supreme court is pretty fucking shitty.

6/27/2012 4:25:46 PM

The SC was a great idea before political parties. We should replace them with Constitutionbots.

6/27/2012 4:46:29 PM

So you have no argument at all that the ruling isn't justified by the first amendment, your only complaint is that who appears to be profiting from the ruling is the same people that appointed the judges and that the stated intention of the bill was to fight corruption. No suggestion at all whether the bill did or even could do that.

Remember the name of the bill. McCain is a Republican. Republicans are a political party and political parties are always happy banning the speech of groups other than themselves and will say whatever it takes to get you to think it is a good idea.

Keep in mind what the law did. It made it illegal for a bunch of political activists to release a movie they made and would have been just as illegal if they had tried to publish a book. How can such a law possibly not be a violation of their First Amendment rights?

[Edited on June 27, 2012 at 4:51 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/27/2012 4:51:12 PM

I like that Scalia thinks it's ok to ban growing your own pot because it takes money out of pot dealers pockets.

And no, I don't smoke dope.

Pretty sure if he stuck with his view of the constitution he would have ruled the same as Thomas:

Quote :

"If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States."

[Edited on June 27, 2012 at 5:03 PM. Reason : ]

6/27/2012 5:02:57 PM

Quote :

"I have a problem because the SC has said that people=corporations and free speech=unlimited campaign contributions. I think that ruling is downright heinous. "

It is heinous, but it's not up to the SC to ban it on those grounds. If they don't see a legal reason based on precedent it should be banned, they shouldn't ban it, even if it's wrong.

I think it's getting to the point, particularly because of how technology has changed industry and communication, where the fall out from C-U is creating a growing threat to our democracy.

It's up to congress at this point to pass a constitutional amendment to correct the problem.

6/27/2012 5:04:23 PM

Well, the Supreme Court overstepped its role when it took on Citizens United, honestly. Congress had already arrived at a solution that was fair and acceptable. Conservatives saw it as an opportunity to get involved judicially though, and they jumped at it. They have no business ruling on campaign finance reform. There was plenty of precedent. There is over 100 years of precedent on campaign financing. The SC just threw out a 100 year old law in Montana designed to combat corruption. They're absolutely running riot because there is no body that can step up to them, politically.

Congress can't even pass a budget. They'll never work together enough to pass a constitutional amendment.

6/27/2012 5:20:51 PM

Quote :

"how he can extrapolate the word 'people' into the word 'corporations.'"

Also, more damningly, corporations once were chartered to exist for limited times and specific purposes, and IIRC there were no provisions in American law, state or federal, to create corporations until 1793 in Delaware (although the British had them for much longer).

BTW, Shaggy, corporations have distinct legal identities from their owners and can do many things from behind the "corporate veil" without bringing liability to those owners; their rights ought to be more limited than those of humans, for as William Blackstone so famously said, "A corporation has no soul to save, nor a body to incarcerate."

[Edited on June 27, 2012 at 6:00 PM. Reason : ^,^^Two-thirds of the states *could* call a national convention to propose an amendment.

6/27/2012 5:57:15 PM

Quote :

"Congress can't even pass a budget. They'll never work together enough to pass a constitutional amendment."

And until they manage it the First Amendment stands. I wonder how they'll word it. "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech except when such speech is deemed politically inconvenient."

^ You mean the rights of some citizens should be more limited than others. That Congress has seen fit to bestow special privileges on the owners of corporations does not make it just to deny them rights everyone else enjoys. Just take away the special privileges and be done with it.

6/27/2012 6:24:34 PM

^You mean that corporations should be considered citizens? (Remember, they have legal identities separate from those of their owners.)

6/27/2012 6:56:12 PM

Quote :

"Once again, you have failed to demonstrate a cogent understanding of the issue at hand and succeeded only in impaling yourself on my colossal e-peen."

lol, this looks like bragging in the soapbox.

BRAGGING IN THE SOAPBOX.

just wow. think about that for just a second. wow.

WOW.

on the other hand i could care less about some "g4yst0n3d f0urtw3nty" undergraduate moron. starting tomorrow youll have one less obama accomplishment to discuss with your longhaired friends in the cafeteria.

so eat up and hurry to my geopolitics class so i can give you a C.

oops, bragging in the soapbox

[Edited on June 27, 2012 at 8:35 PM. Reason : -]

6/27/2012 8:34:06 PM

Nah, son. It's called trolling. And I wouldn't do it if you would ever post an actual argument. But you'd rather ramble on for 15 lines about nothing and then fill your post out with some personal attack.

YOU LITERALLY NEVER POST ARGUMENTS. YOU ARE A TROLL AND NOT EVEN A GOOD ONE.

6/27/2012 8:37:58 PM

looks like i hit the right nerve.

exit stage right,

6/27/2012 8:47:53 PM

Good riddance, troll.

6/27/2012 8:54:47 PM

you call yourself a troll, i tell you to leave, and then you tell me goodbye?

interesting.

[Edited on June 27, 2012 at 8:59 PM. Reason : -]

6/27/2012 8:57:14 PM