Supreme Court Attack on Personal Privacy Continues

[Rohirrim]

But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said the policy was designed in part to protect the safety of Florence and other inmates.
"Exempting people arrested for minor offenses from a standard search protocol thus may put them at greater risk and result in more contraband being brought into the detention facility," said Kennedy. "This is a substantial reason not to mandate the exception (Florence) seeks as a matter of constitutional law."
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito supported all or part of Kennedy's opinion.
Florence was challenging Burlington County rules allowing routine strip searches of everyone arrested, even for minor offenses, regardless of the circumstances.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/justice/scotus-strip-search-ruling/index.html?eref=igoogledmn_topstories

Believe me, the first chance this court has to take apart Justice Brandeis' finding that the most fundamental right is the right to be left alone, they will take it. And that means kiss Roe v Wade (and anything else connected to the concept of privacy) goodbye. I can just see the glee on the faces of Scalia, Alito, Thomas, et al as they legislate from the bench more and more power to the police, and less and less to the citizen. After all, Scalia said his most enjoyable moment on the bench came when he selected Bush to be president.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This from the same handjobs who are supposed to believe in "get government off our backs" and all that sh*t.

[That One Guy]

Well I was reading in the other perspective: These complaints from those thinking government is the answer to everything.

I disagree with the ruling but I want to be able to tell government to GTFO. I'm not saying you have to be all or nothing, anarchist or communist, but it's all a sliding scale. There's some that don't mind people being strip searched, there's some that would rather live in caves than ever give a penny to the government. Some feel as strongly about any government interference as you do about this.

Keep letting the Federal gov't grow and you'll keep dealing with the consequences of broad rulings like this. At least if it were a state judge, you could avoid the jurisdiction and hope for a different atmosphere elsewhere.

[BroncoLifer]

Believe me, the first chance this court has to take apart Justice Brandeis' finding that the most fundamental right is the right to be left alone, they will take it. And that means kiss Roe v Wade (and anything else connected to the concept of privacy) goodbye. I can just see the glee on the faces of Scalia, Alito, Thomas, et al as they legislate from the bench more and more power to the police, and less and less to the citizen. After all, Scalia said his most enjoyable moment on the bench came when he selected Bush to be president.

I disagree with this decision and wish that a majority had ruled the other way. But JFC is irony lost on you. What the hell do you think Griswold or Roe v Wade are if not legislating from the bench? You don't actually mind the USSC doing so....as long as you like the outcome that particular day.

Scalia handed out some good advice about Bush v Gore just last month, by the way. "Get over it."

[Rohirrim]

I disagree with this decision and wish that a majority had ruled the other way. But JFC is irony lost on you. What the hell do you think Griswold or Roe v Wade are if not legislating from the bench? You don't actually mind the USSC doing so....as long as you like the outcome that particular day.

Scalia handed out some good advice about Bush v Gore just last month, by the way. "Get over it."

I think it would be very easy to find an implied right to privacy in the Constitution, and there are years of precedence building up to that concept. The Burger court didn't suddenly dream it up out of nowhere. Brandeis (one of the highest rated justices of all time) had established the concept in Olmstead v U.S. in 1928. The right to be left alone is the most fundamental right we have. All other rights are a separate expression of that. You can walk the stairs of precedence right up to Roe v Wade.

What the Roberts court is doing is simply ignoring precedence to make decisions based on ideology. THAT is the worst kind of activism from the bench. I'm not surprised that comes out of the mouth of Scalia. He has proved time and again that he considers himself a law unto himself and simply rules from a place of consummate ego. That little quote only proves his arrogance. When the final rating for justices is established, he'll be on the lowest tier, along with most of the other members of this disreputable court.

This finding of the this court is another abomination of law. Do you realize what will happen now? Cops have a free hand to humiliate anyone they wish on the flimsiest of excuses. The so called War on Drugs should be called what it truly is, a War on Freedom.

[BroncoLifer]

I think it would be very easy to find an implied right to privacy in the Constitution, and there are years of precedence building up to that concept.


I'm just not impressed by that sort of argument. Inventing rights out of whole cloth is the job of the Congress and the state legislatures, not of a politicized judiciary. I prefer "We the People" over "We the 5 Justices."


The Burger court didn't suddenly dream it up out of nowhere.


Warren Court, not Burger. And since Douglas' opinion relied on penumbras and emanations, I'd say that "dream it up" is a pretty good description of exactly what happened.



The right to be left alone is the most fundamental right we have. All other rights are a separate expression of that. You can walk the stairs of precedence right up to Roe v Wade.


The right to Life is the most fundamental right we have, which is why Mr. Jefferson listed it first back in 1776. And also the reason why Roe will eventually take its rightful place alongside Plessy, Korematsu and Dred Scott in the SCOTUS Hall of Shame.



What the Roberts court is doing is simply ignoring precedence to make decisions based on ideology. THAT is the worst kind of activism from the bench. I'm not surprised that comes out of the mouth of Scalia. He has proved time and again that he considers himself a law unto himself and simply rules from a place of consummate ego. That little quote only proves his arrogance. When the final rating for justices is established, he'll be on the lowest tier, along with most of the other members of this disreputable court.


Blah, blah, blah. Ignoring precedents to make decisions based on ideology = Warren Court and the modern purveyors of the Living Constitution bullcrap.

You don't like Scalia because you recognize him for exactly what he is: an unapologetic Conservative who's a threat to upset the triumph of Liberalism. He's the mirror image of someone like Douglas or Brennan. So yeah, he'll probably get low "ratings" from the likes of the Harvard Law School faculty. I suspect he'd wear that as a badge of honor.

And by the way, since you talk about the evils of ignoring precedent in favor of ideology, why was it OK for Roe to break 190 years of national precedent and the precedents of all 50 states? You're not seriously going to defend it as ideology-free, are you?

[Rohirrim]

I'm just not impressed by that sort of argument. Inventing rights out of whole cloth is the job of the Congress and the state legislatures, not of a politicized judiciary. I prefer "We the People" over "We the 5 Justices."



Warren Court, not Burger. And since Douglas' opinion relied on penumbras and emanations, I'd say that "dream it up" is a pretty good description of exactly what happened.




The right to Life is the most fundamental right we have, which is why Mr. Jefferson listed it first back in 1776. And also the reason why Roe will eventually take its rightful place alongside Plessy, Korematsu and Dred Scott in the SCOTUS Hall of Shame.




Blah, blah, blah. Ignoring precedents to make decisions based on ideology = Warren Court and the modern purveyors of the Living Constitution bullcrap.

You don't like Scalia because you recognize him for exactly what he is: an unapologetic Conservative who's a threat to upset the triumph of Liberalism. He's the mirror image of someone like Douglas or Brennan. So yeah, he'll probably get low "ratings" from the likes of the Harvard Law School faculty. I suspect he'd wear that as a badge of honor.

And by the way, since you talk about the evils of ignoring precedent in favor of ideology, why was it OK for Roe to break 190 years of national precedent and the precedents of all 50 states? You're not seriously going to defend it as ideology-free, are you?

A nice recital of Right Wing talking points. So, the Constitution is not a living document? Strange that within it are the instructions for amending it, changing it, or just tossing it and writing a new one. I like the attack on Harvard. What is it with the Right Wing and education? We used to be proud of our educational institutions in America. Now, there is a whole segment of the population who attacks them, implying that they are not "true" Americans. I guess for that new wing of Americans, education is the enemy. We've all seen those kind of movements in history before, that choose to go after higher education first.

What precedents were broken by Roe v Wade? Answer: None. Like I said, the concept of a right to privacy was in the works for decades. Judging by this latest bull**** ruling from the fascists on this court, we need to spell it out for them. Of course, with Scalia, Thomas, et al it wouldn't do any good. Like Humpty Dumpty's famous dictum, for them, it means whatever they want it to mean.

Have you ever applied the same analysis of Citizens United? Did you know that the court never declared personhood for corporations? A court reporter thought that's what a finding said, but that's not what it said. I'm sure Scalia, et al are aware of that. But their corporate buddies wanted it, like they wanted the Bush presidency, and Scalia has always been a willing stooge of corporate America.

The next time the police pull you over for a traffic ticket and want to take you in to probe your rectum you'll know who to thank.

[BroncoLifer]

So, the Constitution is not a living document? Strange that within it are the instructions for amending it, changing it, or just tossing it and writing a new one.


You really are irony-proof. The central concept of the "Living Constitution" is that it "changes" WITHOUT any need for the application of the amendment process.


I like the attack on Harvard. What is it with the Right Wing and education? We used to be proud of our educational institutions in America. Now, there is a whole segment of the population who attacks them, implying that they are not "true" Americans. I guess for that new wing of Americans, education is the enemy. We've all seen those kind of movements in history before, that choose to go after higher education first.


Strawman. Harvard Law School is reliably Left Wing on any matter regarding politics, such as the "rating" of Presidents or Supreme Court Justices. That is all I wrote.


What precedents were broken by Roe v Wade? Answer: None. Like I said, the concept of a right to privacy was in the works for decades.


You're absolutely right, if by "none" you mean "The laws of all 50 states and over 150 years of uninterrupted jurisprudence".



Judging by this latest bull**** ruling from the fascists on this court, we need to spell it out for them. Of course, with Scalia, Thomas, et al it wouldn't do any good. Like Humpty Dumpty's famous dictum, for them, it means whatever they want it to mean.


I agree that we live in a system wherein the Constitution is whatever 5 Justices say it is. And that is a flawed system. Funny though that you only seem to notice when you don't like the result and are happy to ignore it when you like the result.


Have you ever applied the same analysis of Citizens United? Did you know that the court never declared personhood for corporations? A court reporter thought that's what a finding said, but that's not what it said. I'm sure Scalia, et al are aware of that. But their corporate buddies wanted it, like they wanted the Bush presidency, and Scalia has always been a willing stooge of corporate America.


I would be cool with keeping corporations out of campaigns. Just as soon as the same applies equally to unions or any other non-person.

[mhgaffney]

Bronco Lifer wrote:

"The central concept of the "Living Constitution" is that it "changes" WITHOUT any need for the application of the amendment process."

You really believe this? If so, you must agree with GW Bush that the Constitution is "just a scrap of paper.."

Sig Heil!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bronco Lifer wrote:

"The central concept of the "Living Constitution" is that it "changes" WITHOUT any need for the application of the amendment process."

You really believe this? If so, you must agree with GW Bush that the Constitution is "just a scrap of paper.."

Sig Heil!

Amazing how these right-wing idiots just seem to pull these "facts" out of their a$$es as they go along.

I guess they're working from the "repeat a lie often enough..." paradigm.

[BroncoLifer]

Amazing how these right-wing idiots just seem to pull these "facts" out of their a$$es as they go along.

I guess they're working from the "repeat a lie often enough..." paradigm.

You might be slipping -- it's not the same without a cartoon.

[Rohirrim]

You really are irony-proof. The central concept of the "Living Constitution" is that it "changes" WITHOUT any need for the application of the amendment process.

Since Marbury v Madison, the Court has interpreted the Constitution. For some reason, the Right (and specifically strict constructionists like Scalia, Thomas, Alito, et al) don't believe in the concept of precedence, or a Constitution that grows through use. They want to pretend that the founders perfectly captured every single nuance of liberty for all time.

What the penumbra of constitutional privacy opens up is an even broader interpretation of liberty than existed before. Does it expand, or limit, our rights? IMO, the expansion of rights is the correct path to take. What the present court believes in, obviously, is the restriction of individual rights and an expansion of corporate, government, and police power.


Strawman. Harvard Law School is reliably Left Wing on any matter regarding politics, such as the "rating" of Presidents or Supreme Court Justices. That is all I wrote.

There are plenty of conservative attorneys who attend Harvard Law School. The Right knows that it can rely on extreme right wing positions coming out of its institutions, like the Heritage Foundation or AEI, and simply assumes that everybody else is under the influence of the same kind of rigid ideological litmus test. They're not. It's just your misconception of reality.

If they engaged in the kind of behavior that could be construed as blindly ideological, their reputation would suffer. Whereas in the Right Wing organizations above, that kind of behavior is expected, and they would be attacked by their own fellow travelers if they exhibited any compromise of Right Wing principles. In fact, a few have been kicked out on their asses for not toeing the ideologically "pure" line.


You're absolutely right, if by "none" you mean "The laws of all 50 states and over 150 years of uninterrupted jurisprudence".


Can't think of one. Enlighten me.

I agree that we live in a system wherein the Constitution is whatever 5 Justices say it is. And that is a flawed system. Funny though that you only seem to notice when you don't like the result and are happy to ignore it when you like the result.

False assumption. You don't know me well enough to make it, and have no evidence to back it up. Also, this court is not normal. Their activism has been extraordinary, so they are writing a whole new chapter of ideology on the court. I guess it fits the polarized times we live in. What's new is their show of complete arrogance. Like Scalia's comments or Alito wagging his head at the president during a SOTU speech. Talk about unprecedented.


I would be cool with keeping corporations out of campaigns. Just as soon as the same applies equally to unions or any other non-person.

Here we go again with the Right's belief in false equivalency. There is no union in America that could compete with a corporate super pac. It's like saying a mouse and an elephant are the same because they're both mammals.

[Rohirrim]

Anyway, for those who don't get it, this is a considerable expansion of police powers over our individual rights.

[BroncoLifer]

Their activism has been extraordinary, so they are writing a whole new chapter of ideology on the court. I guess it fits the polarized times we live in. What's new is their show of complete arrogance. Like Scalia's comments or Alito wagging his head at the president during a SOTU speech. Talk about unprecedented.


Please, take off the blinders.

Obama took the extraordinary action of hectoring and attempting to intimidate the USSC in person during the State of the Union address - an unprecedented, arrogant act if there ever was one. And Alito took umbrage with his misrepresentation of their opinion. Yet you only criticize Alito.

Similarly, you rail against the SCOTUS conservatives when you smell that they might be doing exactly what the liberals have been doing - ruling that the Constitution means whatever they say it does (again, Roe v Wade is exhibit #1). But now that's bad because they don't see the world in the same way.

Your view is polarized indeed, Mr Partisan. And that's why I don't think I need the brain damage that continuing this discussion will create.

Try not to blow a gasket when Kennedy kills off the PPACA. :wave:

[Rohirrim]

What Obama said was this:
"It's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

It was not hectoring or intimidation. It was a simple statement, made by the president, in the correct venue for such a statement, directed at Congress. Alito should have kept his little tantrum to himself. I notice that Alito, Scalia and Thomas didn't attend the 2011 speech. I guess it would have been too much for their faint hearts.

Your assertions about Roe are wrong. The founding principles regarding the "penumbra of privacy" were evolving in the court since the 1920s when Brandeis first laid out the concept which was finally elaborated in Griswold. The court has had 40 years to reverse it, and still hasn't. I doubt even this court will have the arrogance to toss it, although you never know. They seem to like making **** up.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You might be slipping -- it's not the same without a cartoon.

Thanks for telegraphing the fact that political satire at the right's expense really strikes a nerve. :wave:

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Similarly, you rail against the SCOTUS conservatives when you smell that they might be doing exactly what the liberals have been doing - ruling that the Constitution means whatever they say it does (again, Roe v Wade is exhibit #1). But now that's bad because they don't see the world in the same way.
If you mean Right Wingers believe in invading and occupying countries, costing American lives and trillions of dollars for each one of these "excursions", taking away women's personal rights, enabling corporate America rights over individual rights, legislating personal sexual activities in our bedrooms and homes and demanding their "God" is a taught as school curriculum, yeah, to most people on the Planet, that IS "bad".

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/552633_424140934278090_108038612554992_1616518_112 9592496_n.jpg

[BroncoLifer]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/552633_424140934278090_108038612554992_1616518_112 9592496_n.jpg

Thanks, it helped a lot! I retract my earlier remark - you've still got it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Thanks, it helped a lot! I retract my earlier remark - you've still got it.

You're welcome.

I try to make it possible for folks with your particular handicap to participate in the discussion.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/tax-parity.jpg

[Bob]

Cant say I like this decision -- I think it crossed a line, I have not read all of it yet...but on the surface it seems to take away more liberty.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Cant say I like this decision -- I think it crossed a line, I have not read all of it yet...but on the surface it seems to take away more liberty.You can be arrested in this country for any "crime" (police officers judgment call), and know that there are "police officers" out there that will stop and arrest you for any of those perceived crimes, some only because of their personal bias towards you.