Posts: 7388
Threads: 168
Joined: February 25, 2009
Reputation:
45
RE: US Supreme Court rules that GPS Monitoring without a warrant is unconstitutional!
January 24, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Quote:Oh right, Jesus, when does the US Government not ignore the Constitution? Seems like it's more of a 'guideline'.
Of course,the US government has a long history if ignoring the constitution when expedient..
I'm fairly confident that Dubya, lke many thousand of believers like say good old Newt, also consider the law of Moses as "The Ten Suggestions"
Quote:Christian: One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbour. One who follows the teaching of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin ( Ambrose Bierce)
Posts: 1211
Threads: 38
Joined: July 15, 2010
Reputation:
21
RE: US Supreme Court rules that GPS Monitoring without a warrant is unconstitutional!
January 24, 2012 at 9:21 pm
(January 23, 2012 at 2:44 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Victory!
It must have been a fluke. This can't be the US Supreme Court - you must be confusing it for Canada or some third world country.
The decision clearly protects a citizen's rights rather than gives it up in the name of "safety." That's hardly American at all. Where's the outrage by the right wing that it helps the terrorists win?
(Yay victory for once! Now if only they'd strike down the NDAA...)
If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools and next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers...
Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and need feeding. Always feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers; tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, Your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth centry when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind. ~Clarence Darrow, at the Scopes Monkey Trial, 1925
Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. ~Ronald Reagan
Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: US Supreme Court rules that GPS Monitoring without a warrant is unconstitutional!
January 24, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Not so fast. Read the justification of the decision. The supreme court did not recognize at all the defendent's right to privacy, nor the right against warrantless surveillance in the electronic age, which might be seen as the crux of the matter and the larger issue at stake.
Instead, the court created so narrow a justification for the superficially sound decision as to effectively changed nothing at all.
The court effectively said the only thing the police did wrong was to temper with the property of the defendant, his car, in mounting the warrantless GPS device, which amounted to trespassing, and that must be a no no in the age of widening gap between the rich and the poor.
It said nothing at all about whether the police could put you under surveillance at will, so long as they don't have to break into your home or car to install the surveillance device.
Posts: 12806
Threads: 158
Joined: February 13, 2010
Reputation:
111
RE: US Supreme Court rules that GPS Monitoring without a warrant is unconstitutional!
January 25, 2012 at 12:35 am
(January 23, 2012 at 2:56 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: This is great news, but, why the fuck did it get to the Supreme Court, it was obviously unconstitutional to begin with, wasn't it?
Issues of constitutional law always wind up in the Supreme Court if there is no similar state law or no law on the topic, if I am not mistaken. It doesn't work that way if the state is out to get you, though. If they don't have the law, you are not in trouble.
I did a lot of studying up on parental rights to help my ex, who happens to be a good dad, just a not so good hubby. At any rate, there are certain cases of grandparental visitation that wind up in the Supreme Court because it is unconstitutional to make a parent give visitation to anyone apart from another parent without showing that the child would be significantly harmed if the visitation is not granted. However, many local laws conflict that law, so it goes up the chain.
Posts: 2886
Threads: 132
Joined: May 8, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: US Supreme Court rules that GPS Monitoring without a warrant is unconstitutional!
January 25, 2012 at 12:40 am
SCOTUS is intended to be the ultimate authority on constitutional law, but most constitutional issues are settled in the lower courts before they get there.
Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.
![[Image: JUkLw58.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/JUkLw58.gif)
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: US Supreme Court rules that GPS Monitoring without a warrant is unconstitutional!
January 25, 2012 at 12:41 am
In this instance the government appealed an appellate court decision. The odd thing is that the SC could have simply chosen not to hear the appeal which would have meant that the lower court decision stood.
Perhaps they felt they needed some practice?
Posts: 12806
Threads: 158
Joined: February 13, 2010
Reputation:
111
RE: US Supreme Court rules that GPS Monitoring without a warrant is unconstitutional!
January 25, 2012 at 12:45 am
(January 25, 2012 at 12:40 am)popeyespappy Wrote: SCOTUS is intended to be the ultimate authority on constitutional law, but most constitutional issues are settled in the lower courts before they get there.
Well, yes, but when there is confusion or mishandling of it, it keeps going up. The wording has to be good enough for a local judge to make a call. Let's face it, the wording rarely works in the plaintiff's favor when it comes to going against the "man," so these cases tend to keep going up.
Posts: 2886
Threads: 132
Joined: May 8, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: US Supreme Court rules that GPS Monitoring without a warrant is unconstitutional!
January 25, 2012 at 12:49 am
(This post was last modified: January 25, 2012 at 12:53 am by popeyespappy.)
Not really. As Min has already pointed out SCOTUS always has the choice whether to even hear an appeal. They often choose to let decisions of the lower courts stand.
SCOTUS may be the only court that hears disputes between the states though. I’ll have to look that one up.
I was right. SCOTUS is the only court to hear disputes between the states.
Quote:The Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear disputes between different states -- meaning that no other federal court can hear such a dispute.
http://www.catea.gatech.edu/grade/legal/scotus.html
Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.
Posts: 12806
Threads: 158
Joined: February 13, 2010
Reputation:
111
RE: US Supreme Court rules that GPS Monitoring without a warrant is unconstitutional!
January 25, 2012 at 12:59 am
(January 25, 2012 at 12:49 am)popeyespappy Wrote: Not really. As Min has already pointed out SCOTUS always has the choice whether to even hear an appeal. They often choose to let decisions of the lower courts stand.
I didn't say anything to contradict any of that. The case has to have merit to go to the Supreme Court. Fuck, a case has to have merit to be heard in any court past the filing.
Posts: 2886
Threads: 132
Joined: May 8, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: US Supreme Court rules that GPS Monitoring without a warrant is unconstitutional!
January 25, 2012 at 1:30 am
(This post was last modified: January 25, 2012 at 1:31 am by popeyespappy.)
(January 25, 2012 at 12:59 am)Shell B Wrote: (January 25, 2012 at 12:49 am)popeyespappy Wrote: Not really. As Min has already pointed out SCOTUS always has the choice whether to even hear an appeal. They often choose to let decisions of the lower courts stand.
I didn't say anything to contradict any of that. The case has to have merit to go to the Supreme Court. Fuck, a case has to have merit to be heard in any court past the filing.
You may not have meant it that way, but when you said
(January 25, 2012 at 12:45 am)Shell B Wrote: Well, yes, but when there is confusion or mishandling of it, it keeps going up. The wording has to be good enough for a local judge to make a call.
It sounded to me like you thought the lower courts could pass a case on to SCOTUS if they didn’t want it. That can’t happen. The lower courts will always render a decision on every case that appears before them. They don’t have the option not to. Since SCOTUS can choose to let any ruling of the lower courts stand cases often stop at the Appellate level even when nobody is happy with their decision.
Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.
|
