Damn Liberal Justices Protect 4A

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf

TLDR guy robs Radio Shack and T-Mobile stores. FBI used cell phone tracking data over 3 months to prove he was near the stores when they were robbed. FBI did not get a warrant. Court said yeah no you need a warrant.

Court ruled as follows:

Roberts writes majority joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan

Thomas, Alito, Kennedy had a dissenting together. Thomas, Alito, and Gorusch also had their own separate dissenting opinions.

I haven't read the whole opinion but if you the court loses another liberal justice while tRUmp or another R is POTUS good bye to digital age protections. Your 2A won't do shit for you when police engage in no knock raids from evidence obtained digitally without a warrant

 

[BudKing8806]

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

I haven't read the whole opinion but

 

[BudKing8806]

I haven't read the whole opinion but

I feel the same way.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

This thing called privacy is a passing fad. It's how it works.
That's the way it goes.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

No-warrant digital tracking, civil forfeiture, welcome to the dystopian police state.

 

[Quequeg]

No-warrant digital tracking, civil forfeiture, welcome to the dystopian police state.

And the so called freedom loving conservatives vote for people who enact it without fail.

 

[HereticBD]

Okay, I gotta ask. What's with the odd capitalization in "tRUmp".

I've seen that QuackQuack guy doing it too. Is there any reason behind it?

 

[irish_thug]

You want a conviction, follow the rules.

 

[BudKing8806]

No-warrant digital tracking, civil forfeiture, welcome to the dystopian police state.

And the so called freedom loving conservatives vote for people who enact it without fail.

So, in this police state, would you two prefer to be able to own firearms or no? Not trying to belittle you guys, but I'm curious.

 

[Fawlty]

Interesting stuff. What I don't understand is this: In this case, a cooperating suspect gave them the guy's name and they went into his records. That's pretty straightforward (and lmao @ "conservatives" for dissenting here, just lol). But can police sort through all of the records and look for patterns to identify suspects? And if they do identify suspects by mass sorting, they would have all of the same information as if they had targeted a person for a search, so what gives? If that was in the ruling I didn't see it or read far enough.

 

[second sight]

https://www.theguardian.com/law/201...police-access-to-phone-data-without-a-warrant

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

And the so called freedom loving conservatives vote for people who enact it without fail.

And their justices make sure to push forward the lack of need for warrants. Pretty astounding. Law and order amirite

Okay, I gotta ask. What's with the odd capitalization in "tRUmp".

I've seen that QuackQuack guy doing it too. Is there any reason behind it?

RU= russia

Way to signify (at least the campaign's) Russian connections

 

[Rod1]

This is well known, from the first amendment back in Eisenhower's days the right wing has always been about government authoritarianism.

 

[Quequeg]

This is well known, from the first amendment back in Eisenhower's days the right wing has always been about government authoritarianism.

Only part of the constitution they care about is 2A.

 

[Throwin Bombs]

For all of these quaking libs on here, I'm a conservative and support the courts decision as much as i want bad guys to be caught easier and prevented from further crimes, this is a right that should be protected. I'm not actually sure how this is a partisan issue.

Most police agencies were operating in accordance with this prior to this ruling as it was foreseen but leave it to the Feds to try to skim the line. That seems to be status quo for them.

 

[Throwin Bombs]

And the so called freedom loving conservatives vote for people who enact it without fail.

That's quite the myth you are perpetuating there. Conservatives are for the least amount of government oversight.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Seems like the correct decision from where I sit.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

For all of these quaking libs on here, I'm a conservative and support the courts decision as much as i want bad guys to be caught easier and prevented from further crimes, this is a right that should be protected. I'm not actually sure how this is a partisan issue.

Most police agencies were operating in accordance with this prior to this ruling as it was foreseen but leave it to the Feds to try to skim the line. That seems to be status quo for them.

If it's not partisan why do the conservatives vote on party lines on this?

It's as I said before, liberals will prop up 4A conservatives 2A. It's a matter of which one you value more.

 

[luckyshot]

For all of these quaking libs on here, I'm a conservative and support the courts decision as much as i want bad guys to be caught easier and prevented from further crimes, this is a right that should be protected. I'm not actually sure how this is a partisan issue.

Most police agencies were operating in accordance with this prior to this ruling as it was foreseen but leave it to the Feds to try to skim the line. That seems to be status quo for them.

Glad you like the decision.

Make sure to than the Supreme Court's four "quaking libs" (and one moderate) because the four conservatives dissented.

Are you sure you are a conservative? Because the conservatives on the Supreme Court seen to be working from some other definition.