Interesting Supreme Court Case

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 70329
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3039 times
Been thanked: 1135 times

Re: Interesting Supreme Court Case

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Mon Jun 25, 2018 4:07 pm

gnome wrote:... the law needs to be clear ...
How about something like his:
  • The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Just a thought.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13697
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 311 times

Re: Interesting Supreme Court Case

Post by WildCat » Mon Jun 25, 2018 4:12 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
gnome wrote:... the law needs to be clear ...
How about something like his:
  • The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Just a thought.
That's not clear to "living Constitution" proponents. Under that doctrine words only mean whatever is convenient at the time.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 70329
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3039 times
Been thanked: 1135 times

Re: Interesting Supreme Court Case

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Mon Jun 25, 2018 4:17 pm

Even "right wingers" tend to get flaky when it comes to " particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 21943
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 354 times
Been thanked: 373 times

Re: Interesting Supreme Court Case

Post by gnome » Mon Jun 25, 2018 6:01 pm

The amendment is fine. But you still need specific laws identifying how the Constitution applies to current concerns. Or else it's a hell of a lot of guesswork.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

User avatar
Pyrrho
Posts: 25674
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6
Has thanked: 2682 times
Been thanked: 2727 times

Re: Interesting Supreme Court Case

Post by Pyrrho » Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:10 am

Popehat has a lawsplainer about the travel ban decision:

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13697
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 311 times

Re: Interesting Supreme Court Case

Post by WildCat » Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:38 pm

Pyrrho wrote:Popehat has a lawsplainer about the travel ban decision:

I guarantee you that not a single one of those dissenting justices will ever conclude that most gun control laws are illegal because the authors of them explicitly stated that the goal was to keep guns from non-white people.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Interesting Supreme Court Case

Post by RCC: Act II » Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:32 pm

gnome wrote:The amendment is fine. But you still need specific laws identifying how the Constitution applies to current concerns. Or else it's a hell of a lot of guesswork.
That, and without a strong exclusionary rule and/or a realistic way to sue police for violating Constitutional rights, scrutinizing the parameters of these rights is pointless.

If there was a need for an amendment, it would be to address how these protections are to be enforced.

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 70329
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3039 times
Been thanked: 1135 times

Re: Interesting Supreme Court Case

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:37 pm

Hey RCC!

Just a bit of side chatter: How about an avatar?
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Interesting Supreme Court Case

Post by RCC: Act II » Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:53 pm

Maybe once I figure out who McGee signs with.