Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: TechMan on August 27, 2010, 09:09:01 AM
-
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html)
Ruling out of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: If your car is parked in your driveway a .gov agent can walk up and attach a GPS tracking device without a warrant and track your movement. 9th Circuit says this does not violate the 4th Amendment. The 9th Circuit ignores the fact that courts have long held that people have reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the curtilage (area around the home.) Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, appointed by Reagan, states the only people that are not affected by this ruling are rich people since they live in homes behind fences. He also states that the judges in the majority are guilty of "cultural elitism." The Time article also states that "we are one step closer to a classic police state." Read for further explanation.
-
How is it that liberal judges in general--and the 9th Circuit in particular--can twist logic into a pretzel to come up with rights that don't or shouldn't exist, but cannot recognize rights that are plainly spelled out of the Bill of Rights?
-
I also read that the decision stated that rich people - those who can afford fences, walls, and gated compounds - have a higher expectation of privacy than poor folks whose driveway and front yard are easily accessed (with or without permission) by anyone who cares to walk across their lawn.
So the cops can track poor folks with fewer restrictions than rich folks.
A blatant attempt to explicitly codify special rights for the elites.
(Hmmm . . . and if one found one of these trackers and tampered with it . . . or, better yet, put it on a car belonging to an LEO, or even better, an LEO's spouse? Follow up with an anonymous message to said spouse saying that his/her SO was using government resources to track them. Much hilarity might ensue. >:D )
-
(Hmmm . . . and if one found one of these trackers and tampered with it . . . or, better yet, put it on a car belonging to an LEO, or even better, an LEO's spouse? Follow up with an anonymous message to said spouse saying that his/her SO was using government resources to track them. Much hilarity might ensue. >:D )
Except they're numbered and usually the police will log the usage if it's part of an above board investigation. This did not say it was legal for YOU to bug someone else's car without a warrant. Just the police. Also, it could be considered an attempt to cause harm to a police officer.
So likely, they'd arrest you and throw you in jail for felony wiretapping. The irony, it is awesome. Kafka has nothing on the American legal system.
-
Well, if I caught some unknown person trying to attach something to or otherwise tamper with one of my vehicles, I would have to assume that he or she was trying to kill me.
-
ruling has been made moot by a more recent supreme court decision however a private party could still buy a cheap device and tail you easily
-
ruling has been made moot by a more recent supreme court decision however a private party could still buy a cheap device and tail you easily
What ruling?
-
Judge Kozinski is a leading conservative, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, but in his dissent he came across as a raging liberal.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html#ixzz0xp2R1nOt
Some people I think are very confused about exact what is a conservative versus a liberal. I think a lot of liberals just assume all conservatives are just a bunch of pro-police state totalitarians.
-
sorry i was wrong it was a fed appeals court that ruled
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/08/06-0
-
sorry i was wrong it was a fed appeals court that ruled
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/08/06-0 (http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/08/06-0)
Well the issue is certainly going to the SCOTUS in the future, since there are 2 Courts of Appeals in conflict.
-
Some people I think are very confused about exact what is a conservative versus a liberal. I think a lot of liberals just assume all conservatives are just a bunch of pro-police state totalitarians.
Very much so. I was taught in my high-school "government" class(class of 2000, for reference) that the political spectum is essentially circular, with far-left and far-right eventually meeting at the same point or goal. That point of view fails to see the other axis - liberty - which clearly illustrates the divergence between left and right(or I should say, between liberal and American conservative).
The same class taught me that Nazi Germany and fascist Italy were basically the end result of a far-RIGHT system. I understand how a shallow look at those countries could lead to that conclusion; after all, nationalism, military strength, etc. are more commonly associated with conservatism than liberalism. However, a deeper look brings one to see that, between national control of industry, restricted movement, heavily restricted personal liberty, extremely non-transparent governance(i.e. secret police, etc.), compulsory military service... they had almost nothing in common with American conservatism, and a great deal more in common with leftism(which tends toward totalitarianism) and even some modern leftist nations.
It's ironic that the viewpoint which desires to silence opposition, criminalize profit, and confiscate property(or wealth, if you prefer) considers itself to be benevolent and righteous.
-
. . . The same class taught me that Nazi Germany and fascist Italy were basically the end result of a far-RIGHT system . . .
I heard that once when I was in school as well. The teacher was rather upset when I pointed out that Nazis were National SOCIALISTS . . . and had no answer when I asked "Since when is socialism of any form a right-wing ideology?"
-
It's ironic that the viewpoint which desires to silence opposition, criminalize profit, and confiscate property(or wealth, if you prefer) considers itself to be benevolent and righteous.
The greatest trampling liberty occurs under the disingenuous banner of benevolence and virtue but is substantially more dangerous when the oppressor genuinely believes what they do to be right.
-
The greatest trampling liberty occurs under the disingenuous banner of benevolence and virtue but is substantially more dangerous when the oppressor genuinely believes what they do to be right.
I was going to say something similar, but that is likely a better answer. All you need is two things 1) a disrespect for the rights & freedom of individuals other than yourself, and 2) you know beyond doubt that you are right and correct and they are wrong. You can be on the right or left and have those two traits. They are often wrapped up in the desire to do what they know is right for you regardless of what you want.
Genuine humility is a very good character trait.
-
The teacher was rather upset when I pointed out that Nazis were National SOCIALISTS . . . and had no answer when I asked "Since when is socialism of any form a right-wing ideology?"
Had a conversation with a history major that was along those lines. I pointed out the same as you. The look on his face, picture a monkey trying to do a math problem, was priceless.
-
i don't have to worry, no one can still my moves. =D
i once fell, and landed on my feet... on completely flat ground. in a field i was standing in ???
-
Well the issue is certainly going to the SCOTUS in the future, since there are 2 Courts of Appeals in conflict.
Not really. We have one Federal Circuit Court, and one Federal Circus.