+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 20 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 291

Thread: Supreme Court

  1. #1
    Champ dawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond repute dawg80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    39,648

    Supreme Court

    I suspect the SC will become increasingly more important to stave off the commie bastards attempted takeover of our country. So, a separate thread is required. And might as well start with this


    Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Police Can Enter A Home To Seize Guns Without A Warrant (forbes.com)









  2. #2
    Champ DawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond repute DawgyNWindow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Middle Tennessee
    Posts
    5,164

    Re: Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by dawg80 View Post
    I suspect the SC will become increasingly more important to stave off the commie bastards attempted takeover of our country. So, a separate thread is required. And might as well start with this


    Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Police Can Enter A Home To Seize Guns Without A Warrant (forbes.com)



    "As long as an officer might reasonably think that a warrantless search will alleviate a danger to the community, the search is considered constitutional."

    OMG, wake the F&^$ up, America. This is not a good thing.

    This is friggin Nazi Germany all over again.

  3. #3
    Champ TYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    53,273

    Re: Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow View Post
    "As long as an officer might reasonably think that a warrantless search will alleviate a danger to the community, the search is considered constitutional."

    OMG, wake the F&^$ up, America. This is not a good thing.

    This is friggin Nazi Germany all over again.
    Exactly my fellow Dawgs!
    And yet we have folks that are totally blind to this as their ears are tickled by the evil whispers.

  4. #4
    Champ DawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond repute DawgyNWindow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Middle Tennessee
    Posts
    5,164

    Re: Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS View Post
    Exactly my fellow Dawgs!
    And yet we have folks that are totally blind to this as their ears are tickled by the evil whispers.
    I was just thinking the whole "defund the police" movement is nothing more than an attempt to control law enforcement for their own purposes. They are willing to "negotiate" away from the defund position IF they are able to decide which tactics, laws and procedures the police are able to employ. Remember, right now the police are only acting on laws THEY created in the first place....

    They already control public education and are using it to brainwash our children. THIS is why they do not believe in school choice. They lose control.

    They are using their positions in big tech to control the flow of information. Disagree with their "truth" and you get shut down.

    Horrible that we have to depend on John Roberts to defend America at this point.

  5. #5
    Champ TYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    53,273

    Re: Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow View Post
    I was just thinking the whole "defund the police" movement is nothing more than an attempt to control law enforcement for their own purposes. They are willing to "negotiate" away from the defund position IF they are able to decide which tactics, laws and procedures the police are able to employ. Remember, right now the police are only acting on laws THEY created in the first place....

    They already control public education and are using it to brainwash our children. THIS is why they do not believe in school choice. They lose control.

    They are using their positions in big tech to control the flow of information. Disagree with their "truth" and you get shut down.

    Horrible that we have to depend on John Roberts to defend America at this point.
    Yes and yes. And to your comment about Big Tech the SC needs to squelch its power to eliminate free speech and those that seek the evil truths of the fascist Dems. These high techs have become a bunch of commie snowflakes and mouth pieces of the rising number of Dem. fascist.

    Look at the latest below.

    11 Feb 2021

    Twitter Locks the Accounts of James O’Keefe and Project Veritas

    Social media platform Twitter has locked the accounts of both Project Veritas and James O’Keefe following a recent report relating to Facebook’s VP of Integrity, Guy Rosen. The platform claims the report violates its policy on “posting private information,” and as a result, both O’Keefe’s personal account and the official account of Project Veritas have been locked, preventing them from posting.

    Twitter has locked the accounts of Project Veritas and the group’s founder James O’Keefe. The account limiting comes shortly after Project Veritas published an exposé on Facebook’s VP of Integrity, Guy Rosen. The video of Rosen is available on the Project Veritas website.

    A tweet from Breaking911 shows the messages that Project Veritas and O’Keefe received when they attempted to access their accounts.

    More

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...oject-veritas/

  6. #6
    Champ dawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond repute dawg80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    39,648

    Re: Supreme Court

    Kudos to Justice Sotomayer for her position on this:

    Supreme Court Considers Fourth Amendment Exception To Let Cops Seize Guns Without A Warrant (forbes.com)

    S
    he's a lib justice, appointed by a Dem POTUS (Clinton?) but when she's right, she's right and I will always give credit when it's due. This is what the SC should do in every case. It's not their role to "make laws" or to try to apply recent societal thoughts to Constitutional law (rulings). Apply the law, that's it.

    I recently took part in a historical round table discussion, specifically on the so-called "Civil War" (which it wasn't), and the topic of slavery was at the forefront of the discussion, especially in questions from the audience. Only a couple of us understood that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was totally meaningless and did not free a single slave. The puzzled looks on people's faces and their insistence they were right was "interesting," and a bit frustrating. I won't go into the details since I know everyone on this forum is well-versed in real history. I will point out, however, given the topic of this thread, the role of the Supreme Court and its adherence to the Constitution. The SC overturned several lower-court rulings, state legislatures, and a committee in Congress all of which wanted to "free the slaves" because the North had won the war, and besides, it was the right thing to do. Granted, but the Constitution allowed for the keeping of slaves, was the "law of the land" and only amending it could change that. The SC received death threats when they first over-turned some of the unconstitutional rulings, but they were correct in insisting strict adherence to the law. Ratification of the 13th Amendment in November, 1865 abolished slavery in the US, not Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of January, 1863.

    The role of the SC is to apply the Constitution to rulings from lower-courts and "laws" passed by legislative bodies. And when those fail to meet the criteria, it is not the role of the SC to fix it for them, but to merely send it back whence it came with a "try again."

  7. #7
    Champ FriscoDog has a reputation beyond reputeFriscoDog has a reputation beyond reputeFriscoDog has a reputation beyond reputeFriscoDog has a reputation beyond reputeFriscoDog has a reputation beyond reputeFriscoDog has a reputation beyond reputeFriscoDog has a reputation beyond reputeFriscoDog has a reputation beyond reputeFriscoDog has a reputation beyond reputeFriscoDog has a reputation beyond reputeFriscoDog has a reputation beyond repute FriscoDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ruston now (Formally Frisco TX)
    Posts
    4,054

    Re: Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by dawg80 View Post
    I suspect the SC will become increasingly more important to stave off the commie bastards attempted takeover of our country. So, a separate thread is required. And might as well start with this


    Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Police Can Enter A Home To Seize Guns Without A Warrant (forbes.com)









    Goosey is on record saying he absolutely does not support this!!

  8. #8
    Champ FriscoDog has a reputation beyond reputeFriscoDog has a reputation beyond reputeFriscoDog has a reputation beyond reputeFriscoDog has a reputation beyond reputeFriscoDog has a reputation beyond reputeFriscoDog has a reputation beyond reputeFriscoDog has a reputation beyond reputeFriscoDog has a reputation beyond reputeFriscoDog has a reputation beyond reputeFriscoDog has a reputation beyond reputeFriscoDog has a reputation beyond repute FriscoDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ruston now (Formally Frisco TX)
    Posts
    4,054

    Re: Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow View Post
    "As long as an officer might reasonably think that a warrantless search will alleviate a danger to the community, the search is considered constitutional."

    OMG, wake the F&^$ up, America. This is not a good thing.

    This is friggin Nazi Germany all over again.
    I do believe that if the SCOTUS votes to allow this, then this will be the tipping point. There will be nothing that would be "off limits" to a warrantless search and seizure. This literally would be like Nazi Germany..

  9. #9
    Dawg Adamant Argument Czar Guisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond repute Guisslapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind and under your skin
    Posts
    29,874

    Re: Supreme Court

    It is funny to see conservatives now care about the 4th amendment. In the last case where the issue was one occupant of a car consenting and the other not consenting to a search, it was conservatives in the court that found an exception to the warrant requirement while the liberals found that a warrant was required.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Randolph

    That has been the tradition - liberal judges not broadening exceptions to warrant requirement with conservatives supporting a loosening.

  10. #10
    Champ DawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond repute DawgyNWindow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Middle Tennessee
    Posts
    5,164

    Re: Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    It is funny to see conservatives now care about the 4th amendment. In the last case where the issue was one occupant of a car consenting and the other not consenting to a search, it was conservatives in the court that found an exception to the warrant requirement while the liberals found that a warrant was required.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Randolph

    That has been the tradition - liberal judges not broadening exceptions to warrant requirement with conservatives supporting a loosening.
    As a REAL libertarian, I care about ALL TEN amendments making up the bill of rights. Maybe "conservatives" like Johnny will support government intrusion (unless it is a government run by the BOM), but most probably don't.

  11. #11
    Dawg Adamant Argument Czar Guisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond repute Guisslapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind and under your skin
    Posts
    29,874

    Re: Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow View Post
    As a REAL libertarian, I care about ALL TEN amendments making up the bill of rights. Maybe "conservatives" like Johnny will support government intrusion (unless it is a government run by the BOM), but most probably don't.
    Well, you shouldn’t support so-called “conservative” justices then.

  12. #12
    Champ DawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond reputeDawgyNWindow has a reputation beyond repute DawgyNWindow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Middle Tennessee
    Posts
    5,164

    Re: Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    Well, you shouldn’t support so-called “conservative” justices then.
    I don't. Don't support the progressive liberal ones either.

    I also think the patriot act is the source of some of the most horrendous government intrusions into the lives of American citizens, including the illegal spying on a presidential candidate. You seem to be for this intrusion.

    Now, if the government was made up of trustworthy folks that didn't think they were above the rules they create, some of this may actually be helpful to prevent terrorism, but....

  13. #13
    Dawg Adamant Argument Czar Guisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond repute Guisslapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind and under your skin
    Posts
    29,874

    Re: Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow View Post
    I don't. Don't support the progressive liberal ones either.

    I also think the patriot act is the source of some of the most horrendous government intrusions into the lives of American citizens, including the illegal spying on a presidential candidate. You seem to be for this intrusion.

    Now, if the government was made up of trustworthy folks that didn't think they were above the rules they create, some of this may actually be helpful to prevent terrorism, but....
    I was one of the rare people here criticizing the patriot act when it was passed. Go back and check the tape. The conservatives here loved it.

  14. #14
    Champ dawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond repute dawg80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    39,648

    Re: Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    It is funny to see conservatives now care about the 4th amendment. In the last case where the issue was one occupant of a car consenting and the other not consenting to a search, it was conservatives in the court that found an exception to the warrant requirement while the liberals found that a warrant was required.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Randolph

    That has been the tradition - liberal judges not broadening exceptions to warrant requirement with conservatives supporting a loosening.
    Then the libs are not liberal, the conservatives not conservative on this particular issue. Why does a judge, or anyone for that matter, have to wear only one tag? I have posted before I have positions on some issues that is considered liberal, even though I am MOSTLY conservative overall.

  15. #15
    Champ TYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    53,273

    Re: Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    I was one of the rare people here criticizing the patriot act when it was passed. Go back and check the tape. The conservatives here loved it.
    In commie regressive hands this is much worse my friend.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts