Did that even make it on CNN? https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...R#>/tongue.gif



Who appointed the justices that voted for this?

101 John Paul Stevens IL April 20, 1920–present December 19, 1975–present —[sup][11][/sup] — Ford —



103 Antonin Gregory Scalia VA March 11, 1936–present September 26, 1986–present — — Reagan —



104 Anthony McLeod Kennedy CA July 23, 1936–present February 18, 1988–present — — Reagan —



105 David Hackett Souter NH September 17, 1939–present October 9, 1990–present — — G. H. W. Bush —



106 Clarence Thomas GA June 23, 1948–present October 23, 1991–present — — G. H. W. Bush —



107 Ruth Bader Ginsburg NY March 15, 1933–present August 10, 1993–present — — Clinton —



108 Stephen Gerald Breyer MA August 15, 1938–present August 3, 1994–present — — Clinton —



109 John Glover Roberts, Jr. MD January 27, 1955–present September 29, 2005–present September 29, 2005–present — G. W. Bush —



110 Samuel Anthony Alito NJ April 1, 1950–present January 31, 2006–present — — G. W. Bush

So Alito/GW, Kennedy/Reagan, Scalia/Reagan, Thomas/GHW, Roberts/GW



Gee BIG ******* SURPRISE. Reagan and GHW with their "war on drugs" should have been called "war on civil liberties and systematic destruction of the Bill of Rights"



Disgusting. 2 from Reagan and 3 from the Bush Crime Family

so basically now the officer can just say "Oh well i looked in the computer and there appeared to be a search warrant on file, must have been for some other guy, I must have had the name wrong, whoops my bad, honest mistake"

they've been searching MY driveway for years!



pigfuckers!

Oh wow...that's a huge kick to your nuts. Any government official can just come in 'by accident' and nail anyone. Sucks for regular joes but its great for nailing illegal gangs and the whatnot.

What difference does it make?



Dubya wasn't legally elected the first time and people were so upset that he got more votes the second time! https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...1047683329.gif

You cannot strip citizens of their rights in the name of "nailing illegal gangs" that's ******* rediculous. I am not a suspect I am tax paying citizen and I have a right to expect no unreasonable search of my property. You want the gestapo to have their paws all over your butt plugs? **** these **********ers could easily find **** on every one our laptops (yes especially mine) that would put us on a watch list or worse get us stuck in gitmo.



A gang is not "illegal" otherwise the NAACP, the NRA, the ACLU (yes i am a member of all of them) would by definition be in violation of the law... they are gangs or clubs. When a gang breaks the law, that act is illegal and that act alone allows for a legal search warrant to be issued. That warrant under the constitution cannot be a blanket warrant a warrant MUST be sepcific. They cannot get a warrant to search your house for drugs then arrest you for having guns BUT THEY DO.



You should have the right to an expectation of privacy, I should not fear the cops rifiling through my **** whenever they feel the need. I have a lot of things that aren't remotely illegal, but I don't want anyone locally to know I have them or know where I keep them. Gold, Food, guns, ammo. What do you think the cops would say after they went through my ****? "Oh if I am ever in need of gold, or ammo or food I know where to come" BULLSHIT. You think these crazy fuckers aren't going to add me to the list of places to hit when the lights go out? First the mormons (which is fine by me) with their years worth of food, then me.



I'll say it again, our rights the rights that our forefathers fought for, gave their lives for should not and cannot be taken away at the expense of everyone in an effort to catch a limited few.

It is bullshit I wouldnt want anyone on my property for any reason no matter how big their ******* badge is. And it took like 30 years for them to get anything substantial to nail the Hell's Angels around here, having a proper reason to go through anyone's **** in Canada takes a while...maybe you should move here https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...#>/biggrin.gif



I know youve mentioned they cant just randomly search your boat here either.

yeah, now you know how i feel, everyone and their brother feels the need to go thru my yard, and make some comment. hell the landlord showed up (unannounced!) and trimmed the tree in the front really badly. mom saw it and now she's pissed at him....



this is an american thing too, we love to look over the neighbors fence for some reason

My parents neighbourhood was the complete opposite of that, everyone did what they did without a problem. You smelled weed from the neighbours yard, you didnt care and waited for an invite or strolled over there with a beer. If your fence was 2 feet or 3 feet away from a shrubbery it didnt matter until one of the ****** old fucks retired and had nothing better to do than see what everyone was doing. Now their talking neighbourhood watch and ****...

Another thing they started doing, they have a field across the street that belongs to the electric company and by some people's standards its nice to have a lightly trimmed field in front of their house but for others they decided to start mowing the **** out of it, using pesticides and arranging flowers and trees with stupid fencing around it. One guy did all this work...than put this big fluorescent orange fence around it so people wouldnt **** it up...lol. So now we have a huge tick problem because the electric company used to come by and trim a couple times a month but with this stupid bullshit in the way they dont come at all!! So just passed where these retards have their dumbass arrangements theres 6 feet of tallgrass. And not to mention if people who actually have to work dont have time to landscape someone elses private property they get this nasty 6 foot tall grass patch in front of their house making it look like they arent fitting in...

canada is lookin better and better...

yes! and the weather in victoria was pretty mild

i've got a few things on the burner right now but nothing looks great. I don't think it's easy to immigrate to canada though.

you must be joking





destroy your ID before you arrive and claim refuge status in Toronto. they give you a health card, drivers license and pay you monthly. You give them a fake address and BINGO!! welcome to Canada

HA HA that sounds shady yo. Now here's a strange thing, my grandmother was canadian and had dual citizenship (sorry that was the strange part). I've been looking seriously at Norway, but I dont think i can handle the winters even though I would prolly be able to work with the citizenship.



I was thinking at some point i should be able to claim political asylum LOL I've got another thing working too, but it's a long shot.

It is difficult to come to Canada if you have employable skills and a job lined up.

So true, even if your married to someone in canada and have skills in something its STILL a pain in the arse to immigrate. Canada is back asswards, do as TYSON says and destroy your drivers license and pretend you dont speak any language at all.

Dude can i at least have some fun and speak african clicking or something LOL

wash up on the shore with no id and claim amnesia....

That would move you ahead in the line

You might even get a job in parliament.

"Herring v. U.S., 07-513"



Herring, eh? Isn't that a type of floppy, smelly fish??

Similar to ignoratio elenchi, a red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument. This is known formally in the English vocabulary as a digression which is usually denoted as "red herring".



The term red herring comes from the time when criminals would use fish to lead sniffer dogs off the trail.



Yeah, its also a fish...

Before everyone runs off to Canada...........



You may not have read the entire brief. The aggreaved party seems to have been a pernnial bad actor, who had many contacts with law enforcement. And in almost every case it was people like you calling in the cops to take care of a

problem with this person rather than confront him yourselves, or on the third offense just beating the dog **** out of

him on your own.



So on the 15th visit to to the aggreaved parties residence, the cops as usual and as required, ask for a warrant check from radio.

Persons at department "A" contact persons at department "B" about outstanding warrants on the ever popular aggreaved party, and person at department "B" informs person at department"A" that there is an outstanding warrant on aggreaved party for Mopery with intent to Gauk, and possesion of a rape tool. The cops arrest aggreaved party on the probable cause provided by the warrant check.



As is usual and proper, the cops frisk Mr. Aggreaved for weapons and contriban, and are free to search the area under his control. As in, did he pitch the just a stolen Rolex into the bushes or the hand gun, dagger, or the screw driver he just gouged the **** out of your Mazda with. In this case they added drugs found on his person at the time of his legal arrest, to his very long list of accomplishments.



The cops did not conspire to illegally arrest the Aggreaved. Nor did they conspire with their records section or dispatcher, or the records section at department "B" or anyone else in order to "under color of law" capture Mr. Aggreaved for any reason known only to themselves.



It is also unlikely that anyone at department "B" conspired with anyone to leave a warrant in the system when it was discovered (after the arrest) that the warrant was no longer in force.

The cops were placed in contact with Mr. Aggreaved (again) through happenstance, and nothing more.

The cops did not place drugs on the person of Mr. Aggreaved, in order to affect a false arrest, nor were they so charged.



So now comes Mr. Aggreaved saying to the court that: "Even though I constantly act up and have been a constant giant pain in the ass to my fellow man over these many Years, and as a result I have been locked up many times, and have learned nothing from this, and have continued to sell dope all over this town, without regret, and without one thought to the damage to others that my dope selling and constant dope use may have caused, I, on this occasion want to get out of jail free, and have the record of this arrest expunged from my record, (leaving only the first 27 arrests) so that my good name may be cleared, and that my lowlife scumbag lawyer my get a once in a lifetime chance to stand before the Supreme Court just one time in his life, and argue that a paperwork error, is actually a constitutional question.



And so he did. And as a normal person would expect, he lost.



This case is not your problem. Mr Obama and his ilk are your problem. Hide your guns. Stock up and hide your ammo. Unless good men do something there will be no guns. Ask the British, who said it can never happen here.

It did.



Lynn E. Hanover

Columbus Ohio

Police patrolman

1968-1978

I read through your post and cannot see where it states they actually had a valid warrant at the time of the search, because if they did not, which is what I read that is IT, no valid warrant they violated the 4th amendment. The bill of right does not allow "honest mistakes" it's very clear, no warrrant = illegal research.



I've read the constituion to extent that I basically have it memorized, the bill of rights as well I don't recall where it says that any part of the constitution can be ignored in order to put "repeat offenders" or "real bad guys" away? i guess i missed that section? i have been laboring under the impression that the constitution protected all American citizens regardless of prior acts.



See this statement is where I think our difference in opinion really begin. You assume that because they are cops they in no way "conspired" to put this deserving "really bad guy" behind bars. I find it not only possible, but likely if for no other reason then your own belief that it's ok to "do what it takes" to put "really bad guys behind bars" I don't subscribe to that logic and nor does the constitution IMO Once we say it's ok to ignore the constitution for "really bad guys" then all that has to be expanded on is the definition of "really bad guys" now it's a drug dealer and multiple offender, tomorrow it's a guy who drives too fast or who's car gets too low a MPG.



We could really stream line the legal system with more rulings like this. pretty soon we'll just have have the officer sign an affidavit that says he's seen or heard or thinks and or believes that the citizen has done something illegal and has therefor sentanced him to 2 years in jail (of course no trial necessary).



The slow eriosion of our rights is NOT OK WITH ME and you guys may be more then happy about it when it puts a career criminal away, but I am not, when I see his rights violated I wonder when I'll be the bad guy in the news.



Supreme court rulings set precidents, then distrcit judges expand on those precidents. You being former law enforcement are obviously more comfortable with the police departments ever expanding reach and that's fine, I can't fault you for that. I have friends that are cops, doesn't mean I trust their friends. Mark my words, this ruling will be expanded, today the local drug dealer, the neighbor with a fully auto weapon, the friendly guy accross the street smoking a j.



Roe vs. Wade was an abortion for a woman who had been raped, it made abortion legal. Do we go into the specifics of that case when establishing future abortion rulings? No, even though the case was for a raped woman it made abortion legal under EVERY set of circumstances and this ruling will too.





Man thank god it wasn't me you say to yourself..... and then one day it is.





The constitution is CLEAR, it should not be bent to put even the worst criminal behind bars you bend it to put the bad guy in jail and it's next bent to put you and I in jail.



Let me remind you all the 4th Amendment is:



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.



There was no VALID, no matter a confusion from dispatch, etc, etc... the fact remains THERE WAS NO VALID WARRANT, that is the beginning and the end of the story.



I see **** this BART cops first reaction after a fellow officer shoots a man in cold blood is to confiscate all teh cameras in the area and I am ******* scared! Their reaction was NOT to call an ambulance, not help the kid but "Hurry get all the cameras, get the proof" its disgusting.



Are all cops bad? No I am no saying that, I'm not even saying the majority are, but I am saying that the constitution is there to keep them honest or rather WAS there to keep the bad one's honest.

I feel that EVERY erosion of the constitution however slight is in fact my problem because it doesn't end. 1 day we widdle a little off the 4th amendment and tomorrow we no longer have the right to Habius Corpus (oh **** I forgot the Patriot Act got rid of that one already).





How can I do that without the 4th amendment? The 2nd gives me the right to buy them, the 4th gives me the right to expect to be able to keep them from illegal siezure. you think yer going to Ann Frank from the SS in this age of night vision and heat signatures, phone taps, etc, etc?

That's what's funny, people in the USA think somehow that the Democratic Party is the source of too much government intrusion in their lives, which anyone can see from the last few years is not a fact.



We have the same problem come out of our Liberal Party, which is in fact our left of centre default government.

You ever notice people gladly leave their guns behind without a seconds thought when they say, go to a storm shelter for food and shelter? Now why would a gov't go door to door to take guns away when it's a complete waste of time?

You've been watching NCIS. Ducky ftw!



I never did completely find out what white elephant meant.

Honestly no, I have never been to a storm shelter. But I believe you mean New Orleans right?

I didnt ask if you had been to one, but I guess it was a rhetorical. I was not referring to nawlins, although it would prove my point as well. Although, US soldiers armed with M4's all over town would prolly detract from my original theme. I was referring to, well most recently Michigan during the floods, they evacuated everyone so that was no voluntary, bad example . Ok right here in florida, right here in the town I am sitting in during Frances, Jean, Wilma people VOLUNTARILY left their home to go to a county shelter, they were not allowed to bring pets, guns anything really, no personal possessions they dont have room for them. People go, by the thousands, they show up, they get fed, they get a cot. Now imagine an america where Monsanto has choked our food supply (this is very easy if you know anything about the american food supply) americans are broke, starving and in need of food, no means to provide for themselves, the grocery stores are empty and on the TV comes a FEMA guy, he says "Have No fear Americans, we have plenty of food however we do not have the means to distribute it to every town in america, we will send a bus, board the bus and we will take you to a camp with food, shelter, heat" Good deal right? Now yer unarmed, but yer fed, yer warm and who cares what direction the barbwire points.

I thought they did go around rounding up guns in New Orleans?



oh wait, they did;



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/national...8cnd-storm.html

First off, my point was not that any of the events were in an effort to get you away from your guns and take them, but rather that it is quite possible to get people to willingly leave them behind. My point was not that these were efforts by the feds to grab guns, that wasn't the case at all, but that the feds have proven it's quite easy to get people away from their homes and weapons by their own free will. A hurricane is not nationwide event, nor is it predictible enough, but the food supply is BOTH.



new orleans tought the feds a lot.

My point was that a Republican government seized peoples legally owned guns, contrary to the long windy post above ours.

People who buy into the myth that republicans and democrats are different in some way make me giggle.



The things they claim that separate the two NEVER change.

The reps had full control did they abolish abortion? No Did they try? No



Did they outlaw gay marriage? No



Did they shrink Gov't? No



The very things they use to define their differences NEVER CHANGE.



Dems and reps share one very important common interest and that is that they willingly and knowingly act in total disregard to the wishes of their constituents. In short when it comes to ******* the american people they've got something to Hi-five and to have a snort of coke off a hookers stomach about.



Criminals deny breaking the law, con men say whatever necessary to get you to believe them.

What if tomorrow the things you do today become illegal, what if gun ownership is breaking the law, drinking alcohol, growing your own garden. What if in the law's eyes you become "the really bad guy" will you still want the constitution ignored? Or will it be ok for them to kick your door in and take your gold because it is now illegal and YOU have become the really bad guy will you be glad the supreme court takes into account "really bad guys aren't entitled to protection under the Bill Of Rights"? Like you said, never say it will never happen................

I don't want this gal deciding if I'm a bad enough guy to possibly have a later to be found expired warrant potentially not on file, but I am positive I want this highly trained law enforement person leading the charge into my home!