Conservative Supreme Court Judges Rule to "Protect Your Personal Liberties"

[BFT3K]

These "small government" judges are just as pathetic as all of the sheep who insist on voting Republitard.

[iwantchixx]

I understand the idea behind strip searches, looking for drugs and weapons. However.. there HAS to be reason. I don't think it's right at all to invade a person's orifices unless they have really good reason to assume there is anything there. To me, it's rape.

If you shoved a finger up a stranger's ass against his/her will, it's considered assault. Period.

I would kick a cop straight in the fucking balls of he even touched my anus.

[sperbonzo]

I believe that the ruling was made regarding a situation where you are under arrest and in custody in the jail. Its been pretty standard policy for a long time. This case was just a challenge to that.

It does NOT mean that they can just write you a ticket and strip search you by the roadside. That kind of hyperbole kind of ruins any kind of point here....



.

[SuckOnThis]

Conservatives love a police state.

[L-Pink]

Wonder if the chick in the bottom/middle needs bail money ...

.

[smutnut]

I hope they at least hire hot chicks if someone is going to shove their hand up my ass

[NaughtyVisions]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I believe that the ruling was made regarding a situation where you are under arrest and in custody in the jail. Its been pretty standard policy for a long time. This case was just a challenge to that.

It does NOT mean that they can just write you a ticket and strip search you by the roadside. That kind of hyperbole kind of ruins any kind of point here....



.

That's what I read, as well. It pertains to being in police custody at jail.

[BFT3K]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I believe that the ruling was made regarding a situation where you are under arrest and in custody in the jail. Its been pretty standard policy for a long time. This case was just a challenge to that.

It does NOT mean that they can just write you a ticket and strip search you by the roadside. That kind of hyperbole kind of ruins any kind of point here.....

Yeah, I wonder how you would interpret this if the 4 left-leaning judges approved it instead?

[Robbie]

Sperbonzo is 100% correct.

The ruling allows the cops to strip search a suspect in custody. NOT a roadside traffic ticket like BTF3K is trying to say.

I don't see any problem with that.

But I do think there needs to be LESS laws and LESS ability for a cop to arrest people in the first place.
Just saw the stats that the U.S. has 5% of the world's population...but incarcerates 25% of the people in prison!

Yep...we put more of our citizens in jail than the "Evil" China, or the "Evil" Cuba, or the "Evil" North Korea.
We imprison more of our citizens than any country in HISTORY has ever done.

Even Pat Robertson is now saying that the "drug war" needs to end and drugs made legal.

Even that conservative religious nut case can understand that people should be FREE to live their lives as they choose without the govt. making damn near everything illegal.

[SuckOnThis]

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

Conservatives love a police state.

You mean conservatives like Obama and the Democrats in the Senate?

Did you pay ANY attention to the passage of the NDAA?


THIS situation deals with a standard policy in place for many years about what happens when you are already in jail. The NDAA completely overwhelms the constitution and truly makes us a police state.


You idiots that think that "conservatives" want a police state, or "liberals" want a polce state are fooling yourselves badly.

They ALL want a police state.... They ALL want to give themselves (the government), more and more control... They ALL want to grow government and give the political elites control of the money and the power.


This little ruling is a total red herring. PAY ATTENTION TO THINGS LIKE THE NDAA!!





.


.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Sperbonzo is 100% correct.

The ruling allows the cops to strip search a suspect in custody. NOT a roadside traffic ticket like BTF3K is trying to say.

I don't see any problem with that.

But I do think there needs to be LESS laws and LESS ability for a cop to arrest people in the first place.
Just saw the stats that the U.S. has 5% of the world's population...but incarcerates 25% of the people in prison!

Yep...we put more of our citizens in jail than the "Evil" China, or the "Evil" Cuba, or the "Evil" North Korea.
We imprison more of our citizens than any country in HISTORY has ever done.

Even Pat Robertson is now saying that the "drug war" needs to end and drugs made legal.

Even that conservative religious nut case can understand that people should be FREE to live their lives as they choose without the govt. making damn near everything illegal.

.

[pimpmaster9000]

Man america is becoming a scary place...

[IllTestYourGirls]

First off, it is UNREASONABLE to be brought to jail over unpaid parking tickets. So they have people arguing over the wrong subject. Should someone be placed in jail for unpaid parking tickets or should other measures like leaning bank accounts and cars be used to collect the funds?

[Shotsie]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

It does NOT mean that they can just write you a ticket and strip search you by the roadside. That kind of hyperbole kind of ruins any kind of point here....



.

Cops can practically strip you down to your drawers on the side of the road if they want to. Always been that way. Probable cause, which is whatever the officer wants it to be.

[BFT3K]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

You mean conservatives like Obama and the Democrats in the Senate?

Did you pay ANY attention to the passage of the NDAA?

THIS situation deals with a standard policy in place for many years about what happens when you are already in jail. The NDAA completely overwhelms the constitution and truly makes us a police state.

You idiots that think that "conservatives" want a police state, or "liberals" want a polce state are fooling yourselves badly.

They ALL want a police state.... They ALL want to give themselves (the government), more and more control... They ALL want to grow government and give the political elites control of the money and the power.

This little ruling is a total red herring. PAY ATTENTION TO THINGS LIKE THE NDAA!!

..

Accompanying the President’s signature was a signing statement which was intended to clarify some of his perspectives on the NDAA’s most controversial language. The statement read in part, “my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American Citizens.” However, what is important to keep in mind here is that the statement refers only to what this administration pledges, not to the intentions or requirements of future administrations.

Are the GOP presidential candidates promising to strike this new controversial passage, should they wind up winning anytime in the future?

[Rochard]

Holy shit people are stupid.

It's pretty simple - go to jail, and you WILL be searched. They don't say "Oh, you in jail for a traffic ticket and don't need to be searched". You don't go to a "traffic ticket jail". They don't separate speeders from father rapers. If you go to jail or prison for any reason, they have the right to shove their fingers up your ass to make sure your not carrying drugs or cell phones or weapons into the jail.

That's pretty fucking simple.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

Accompanying the President?s signature was a signing statement which was intended to clarify some of his perspectives on the NDAA?s most controversial language. The statement read in part, ?my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American Citizens.? However, what is important to keep in mind here is that the statement refers only to what this administration pledges, not to the intentions or requirements of future administrations.

Are the GOP presidential candidates promising to strike this new controversial passage, should they wind up winning anytime in the future?

People are such suckers. If he was actually serious about that, HE WOULD HAVE HAD IT PUT IN THE LAW ITSELF!!!

A "statement" attached to the bill is meaningless, legally. It's simply something that his supporters can point to and say, "See? He signed it, but he doesn't really MEAN it!"

He can use the act anytime he wants, may be using it right now... some "statement" doesn't stop him in any way. Are you really this blinded by partisan politics?



.

[Shotsie]

Originally Posted by Rochard

It's pretty simple - go to jail, and you WILL be searched. They don't say "Oh, you in jail for a traffic ticket and don't need to be searched". You don't go to a "traffic ticket jail". They don't separate speeders from father rapers. If you go to jail or prison for any reason, they have the right to shove their fingers up your ass to make sure your not carrying drugs or cell phones or weapons into the jail.

No they don't. They're not supposed to strip search you for a non-violent offense. prison officials must have a "reasonable suspicion" that a particular arrestee is concealing weapons or other contraband before conducting a strip search. As a matter of fact, Philadelphia County Jail settled a huge lawsuit for that not too long ago, something like 200 million dollars. Every person that went through the county jail and got strip searched for non-violent offenses between, like, 2002 and 2007 got about a grand from it.

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

People are such suckers. If he was actually serious about that, HE WOULD HAVE HAD IT PUT IN THE LAW ITSELF!!!

A "statement" attached to the bill is meaningless, legally. It's simply something that his supporters can point to and say, "See? He signed it, but he doesn't really MEAN it!"

He can use the act anytime he wants, may be using it right now... some "statement" doesn't stop him in any way. Are you really this blinded by partisan politics?



.

Obama doesnt have the authority to 'put it in the law', thats congresses job. I should point out this controversial amendment was added by republican John McCain.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

Obama doesnt have the authority to 'put it in the law', thats congresses job. I should point out this controversial amendment was added by republican John McCain.

Then he should have vetoed it, if he didn't intend to use it. He could have lobbied in the Senate to have the clause removed. What do you think the "Party Whip's" are for?


Never mind, all you guys care about is what party does what, or says what about the other.



Totally hopeless...





.



.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by Robbie

But I do think there needs to be LESS laws and LESS ability for a cop to arrest people in the first place.
Just saw the stats that the U.S. has 5% of the world's population...but incarcerates 25% of the people in prison!

Yep...we put more of our citizens in jail than the "Evil" China, or the "Evil" Cuba, or the "Evil" North Korea.
We imprison more of our citizens than any country in HISTORY has ever done.

I've never done drugs, so I frankly do not care one way or the other on that.

The penal system is out of control. In can't recall where I had read it now, but in some states the prisons make up the majority of their budgets and it keeps climbing. They are spending more money on locking people up, then healthcare and education.

Fucking nuts.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

First off, it is UNREASONABLE to be brought to jail over unpaid parking tickets. So they have people arguing over the wrong subject. Should someone be placed in jail for unpaid parking tickets or should other measures like leaning bank accounts and cars be used to collect the funds?

No, not at all. If you don't pay your traffic tickets or fines, at a certain point, a warrant is issued.

Your making it out to sound like people are being hauled off to prison for minor traffic offenses. What happens is someone fails to pay a traffic ticket, and gets a notice to appear in court. Once you fail to appear in court, it's no longer a traffic ticket, but a much more serious offense.

Not sure about other areas, but here in California if you owe the court money, they contact DMV and put a lock on your account. You are unable to renew your DL or car registration, and are unable to buy or sell anything.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Holy shit people are stupid.


That's pretty fucking simple.

No, its pretty fucking stupid ....

But it is the USA ... When I spend time there :

- never get into a driving argument ( he could have a gun and shoot you )
- don't argue if someone passes ahead of you ( he could have a gun and shoot you )
- don't stare at a hot chick if she is with a guy ( he could have a gun and shoot you )
- don't walk by myself at night ( someone could have a gun and shoot you )
- don't talk politics ( ( he could have a gun and shoot you ) )
- and everything else ( he could have a gun and shoot you )

[Shotsie]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

First off, it is UNREASONABLE to be brought to jail over unpaid parking tickets. So they have people arguing over the wrong subject. Should someone be placed in jail for unpaid parking tickets or should other measures like leaning bank accounts and cars be used to collect the funds?

I spent three days in jail for unpaid traffic tickets a couple years ago, almost four. Got locked up on a Friday night, didn't get out till monday morning.

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Then he should have vetoed it, if he didn't intend to use it. He could have lobbied in the Senate to have the clause removed. What do you think the "Party Whip's" are for?


Never mind, all you guys care about is what party does what, or says what about the other.



Totally hopeless...





.



.

If I remember correctly the bill was to fund the Dept of Defense, so if he vetoed it the republicans would have used that against him, but yes he should have vetoed it.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Shotsie

No they don't. They're not supposed to strip search you for a non-violent offense. prison officials must have a "reasonable suspicion" that a particular arrestee is concealing weapons or other contraband before conducting a strip search. As a matter of fact, Philadelphia County Jail settled a huge lawsuit for that not too long ago, something like 200 million dollars. Every person that went through the county jail and got strip searched for non-violent offenses between, like, 2002 and 2007 got about a grand from it.

I find that hard to believe. I don't care why your going to jail, but you need to be frisked when arrested, and then strip searched at the jail. I can't imagine it any other way.

This is how drugs, weapons, and fucking cell phones get into the prison population.

Sorry, but when your arrested, for any reason, your right to privacy is already long gone.

[12clicks]

another thread where Sperbonzo schools the thread starter.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by Shotsie

I spent three days in jail for unpaid traffic tickets a couple years ago, almost four. Got locked up on a Friday night, didn't get out till monday morning.

Correct.

You can be pulled over, and locked up for unpaid parking tickets. Normally you can post bail (the total amount of the tickets) and be released. However, if you do not have that money available, or someone to bail you out, then you get to enjoy a weekend in the custody of the state for your pleasure. Which may include a bend over rump roast.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

when the private sector runs the prison system this is what happens.

[Shotsie]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Correct.

You can be pulled over, and locked up for unpaid parking tickets. Normally you can post bail (the total amount of the tickets) and be released. However, if you do not have that money available, or someone to bail you out, then you get to enjoy a weekend in the custody of the state for your pleasure. Which may include a bend over rump roast.

The worst part was I had the money in my bank account, I was just being lazy about paying the tickets. and it's not like the cops are going to drive you to the ATM before they take you down to the station. And it was a friday night, everybody was out at the bars or doing whatever, and I couldn't get a hold of anyone to come down and post bail. I wound up getting a check from the county for a grand though for getting strip searched, and my tickets were only about $180.00, so I made out on the deal in the end. Deserved it for sitting in that shithole all weekend. Philadelphia county jail is like the fucking thunderdome, place is insane.

Originally Posted by Rochard

I find that hard to believe. I don't care why your going to jail, but you need to be frisked when arrested, and then strip searched at the jail. I can't imagine it any other way.

This is how drugs, weapons, and fucking cell phones get into the prison population.

Sorry, but when your arrested, for any reason, your right to privacy is already long gone.

http://www.ptfin.com/Philadelphia-To...p-Search-Claim

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by tony286

when the private sector runs the prison system this is what happens.

actually, this is what happens when you spend 60 years and billions of dollars breeding the bottom of society.

[Socks]

You guys are missing the point. The cops use anything they have at their disposal, and regularly argue things in court to change the laws in their favour to get the little extras they think will give them greater advantage.

Just before the G20 happened in Toronto, the police here slid under new measures that allowed them to demand identification and search anyone who came within 5 meters of a fence. So you didn't have to go go *through* the fence, you just had to be anywhere *near* the fence, and you'd basically be auto-arrested. Rather than have this new law debated through proper channels, they slid it in under some ancient "public works" act that was meant for war times.

They just don't play fair is the point.

So now they have an extra tool in their arsenal. Let's say you get pulled over for speeding, and the cop says he wants to search you. You have no reason to be searched, but he's asking. You refuse. Now he decides he's going to detain you for further questioning at the station... What do you do? You go to the station... What else?

Seems like most from the conservative camp expect the police to be rational and fair, which just isn't the case. They mess with you because they can, as strategy, for fun, to make themselves feel good, to show off in front of their partner, to meet quota, lots of reasons.

Don't think for a second there won't be more people being brought to the station now. They have a new toy to play with in this law and of course they're going to use it any chance they get.

[Socks]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

actually, this is what happens when you spend 60 years and billions of dollars breeding the bottom of society.

12clicks say something even you believe in.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by Socks

You guys are missing the point. The cops use anything they have at their disposal, and regularly argue things in court to change the laws in their favour to get the little extras they think will give them greater advantage.

Just before the G20 happened in Toronto, the police here slid under new measures that allowed them to demand identification and search anyone who came within 5 meters of a fence. So you didn't have to go go *through* the fence, you just had to be anywhere *near* the fence, and you'd basically be auto-arrested. Rather than have this new law debated through proper channels, they slid it in under some ancient "public works" act that was meant for war times.

They just don't play fair is the point.

So now they have an extra tool in their arsenal. Let's say you get pulled over for speeding, and the cop says he wants to search you. You have no reason to be searched, but he's asking. You refuse. Now he decides he's going to detain you for further questioning at the station... What do you do? You go to the station... What else?

Seems like most from the conservative camp expect the police to be rational and fair, which just isn't the case. They mess with you because they can, as strategy, for fun, to make themselves feel good, to show off in front of their partner, to meet quota, lots of reasons.

Don't think for a second there won't be more people being brought to the station now. They have a new toy to play with in this law and of course they're going to use it any chance they get.

again, the uninformed chime in.
here in America, we don't allow criminals to enter the general population of a detention facility without being strip searched.
Someone wanted an exception for non-violent criminals. The court rightly said no.
They're won't be "more people being brought to the station" because the station is not where the strip searching takes place.
I'm surprised at the lack of professionalism and lack of the rule of law that you profess goes on in canada.

[BFT3K]

If the title of this post was...

Liberal Supreme Court Judges Rule to "Protect Your Personal Liberties"

instead of....

Conservative Supreme Court Judges Rule to "Protect Your Personal Liberties"

the entire conversation here would be TOTALLY different, no fucking doubt about it!

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

No, its pretty fucking stupid ....

But it is the USA ... When I spend time there :

- never get into a driving argument ( he could have a gun and shoot you )
- don't argue if someone passes ahead of you ( he could have a gun and shoot you )
- don't stare at a hot chick if she is with a guy ( he could have a gun and shoot you )
- don't walk by myself at night ( someone could have a gun and shoot you )
- don't talk politics ( ( he could have a gun and shoot you ) )
- and everything else ( he could have a gun and shoot you )

http://news.yahoo.com/denver-911-apo...opstories.html

[Shotsie]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

here in America, we don't allow criminals to enter the general population of a detention facility without being strip searched.
Someone wanted an exception for non-violent criminals. The court rightly said no.

Not really. Ultimately it's up to the states.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

If the title of this post was...

Liberal Supreme Court Judges Rule to "Protect Your Personal Liberties"

instead of....

Conservative Supreme Court Judges Rule to "Protect Your Personal Liberties"

the entire conversation here would be TOTALLY different, no fucking doubt about it!

no it wouldn't.
liberals love criminals. conservatives don't.
liberals don't understand the decision, conservatives do.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by Shotsie

Not really. Ultimately it's up to the states.

odd then that thats not what the FEDERAL supreme court said.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

http://news.yahoo.com/denver-911-apo...opstories.html

http://www.globaltoronto.com/canada/...087/story.html

[BFT3K]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

no it wouldn't.
liberals love criminals. conservatives don't.
liberals don't understand the decision, conservatives do.

Yeah, liberals love criminals.

Does smoke emit from your ears when you're doing your "thinkin" ?

[Shotsie]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

odd then that thats not what the FEDERAL supreme court said.

Exactly. The ruling only deals with federal law, not state law. There's still state laws that prohibit illegal strip search. Marijuana is still illegal under federal law.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

http://www.globaltoronto.com/canada/...087/story.html

I was referring to " getting shot " .....

But I did not expect you to understand .... Go back to installing shingles ...

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

I was referring to " getting shot " .....

But I did not expect you to understand .... Go back to installing shingles ...

nice try but dead is dead, moron.

I made more roofing than you ever did in adult.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by tony286

when the private sector runs the prison system this is what happens.

Yeah because government arrest quotas have nothing to do with it.

Although I agree with not having private prisons.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by Shotsie

Exactly. The ruling only deals with federal law, not state law.

incorrect. the search in question happened at the county level.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Yeah because government arrest quotas have nothing to do with it.

Although I agree with not having private prisons.

Your business is prisons. You do deals to bring your prisons to states that promise to keep them nice and full.
http://news.yahoo.com/corrections-fi...170655904.html
"Eligible facilities must have at least 1,000 beds, must be less than 25 years old and in good condition, and have to maintain at least a 90 percent occupancy rate."

give kick back to judges
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us...pagewanted=all

Its their business and it doesnt work unless its full of prisoners. So they do what they have to do.

[Gouge]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

Yeah, liberals love criminals.

Does smoke emit from your ears when you're doing your "thinkin" ?

Your lord and savior Barry Soetoro started his political career in the living room of Bill Ayers...no need to say anything more as to who loves criminals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ay...on_controversy

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by tony286

Your business is prisons. You do deals to bring your prisons to states that promise to keep them nice and full.
http://news.yahoo.com/corrections-fi...170655904.html
"Eligible facilities must have at least 1,000 beds, must be less than 25 years old and in good condition, and have to maintain at least a 90 percent occupancy rate."

give kick back to judges
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us...pagewanted=all

Its their business and it doesnt work unless its full of prisoners. So they do what they have to do.

You just listed two big government problems.

1. Over regulation
2. Crony Capitalism