## Supreme Court or Political Agenda?

Post by Jason Toddman » Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:15 pm

I can't help but think that the Supreme Court is trampling on our freedoms rather than supporting them.

Attachments

Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Supreme Court or Political Agenda?

Post by drawscore » Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:01 am

As I mentioned in a previous post, there are four different levels of crimes: Infractions (jaywalking); violations (speeding); misdemeanors (simple assault); and felonies (assault with a deadly weapon). In the case of infractions and violations, the individual is issued a citation or a ticket, and sent on his way. The same holds true for third, and even second degree misdemeanors, where you are usually sent a "notice to appear." But for first degree misdemeanors, and for felonies, you are probably going to jail. In other words, you have to do something really serious before the cops arrest you and take you to the local lock up.
Now, if you get a traffic ticket, and loudly call the ticketing officer an "asshole," and spew forth a string of profanities and obscenities, or if you have ignored previous tickets or summons, don't be surprised if you wind up in cuffs, in the back of his cruiser.
Therefore, since the vast majority of people taken to jail, and subjected to strip searches are suspected felons or first degree misdemeants, I really don't see a problem, despite the efforts of the cartoonists to try and create the impression that you will be jailed and strip searched for "failing to signal a left turn," or some other minor infraction or violation. It simply isn't true.
Drawscore

### Re: Supreme Court or Political Agenda?

Post by Jason Toddman » Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:05 am

> drawscore wrote: Therefore, since the vast majority of people taken to jail, and subjected to strip searches are suspected felons or first degree misdemeants, I really don't see a problem, despite the efforts of the cartoonists to try and create the impression that you will be jailed and strip searched for "failing to signal a left turn," or some other minor infraction or violation. It simply isn't true. Drawscore

I agree with you as far as the current situation is concerned... but this is still a giant step in the wrong direction as far as I am concerned. For one thing, it makes hash of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Second, it simply paves the way for restricting our rights even further, or do you believe it would actually stop here? The Gestapo was created when people allowed their rights to be trampled; do you want to see that happen here - and, regardless of what your views are, given time and decisons like this, eventually it CAN happen here! It'd be somewhat harder, and therefore it'd take somewhat longer, but it is far from impossible.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Supreme Court or Political Agenda?

Post by drawscore » Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:47 pm

>>> . . .but this is still a giant step in the wrong direction as far as I am concerned. For one thing, it makes hash of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Second, it simply paves the way for restricting our rights even further, or do you believe it would actually stop here?<<<
You have to treat all inmates in the same detention facility, equally. If you just strip search certain classes or races, and not others, or only those suspected of certain crimes, then you open yourself up to a lawsuit from the ACLU or some other collection of screwballs.
>>>The Gestapo was created when people allowed their rights to be trampled; do you want to see that happen here - and, regardless of what your views are, given time and decisons like this, eventually it CAN happen here! <<<
The Obama administration IS trampling our rights. We have an energy secretary who wants gas prices at European levels ($9-$10 a gallon), and an attorney general who thinks it's OK to vote without showing ID, and is up to his neck in the "Fast and Furious" scandal.
Drawscore

### Re: Supreme Court or Political Agenda?

Post by Jason Toddman » Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:48 pm

> drawscore wrote: The Obama administration IS trampling our rights. Drawscore

And precisely where did I ever say otherwise?
But be fair. The Bush administration trampled our rights far more thoroughly than Obama has (of course, he had more time than Obama has had so far), a McCain administration would likely have trampled them at least as much as Obama's administration has had HE become president, and Romney is likely to be just another case of "New Boss; same as the Old Boss" should he win the election.
And, finally, nothing you said there has ANYTHING to do with the Supreme Court.

> drawscore wrote: You have to treat all inmates in the same detention facility, equally. Drawscore

That would be fine, provided they were arrested on an equal basis. But you and I know that - all other things being equal - you're more likely to get arrested if you're a young black male than if you're an upper class white female. In which case you can bet someone is going to holler race or sexual discrimination as a result of this - probably even before the election.
Also if they were arrested for similar reasons; but somehow I don't think someone arrested for smoking pot or drinking in public deserves the same treatment as someone arrested for murdering his wife and family.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Supreme Court or Political Agenda?

Post by jonny86 » Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:12 pm

> Jason Toddman wrote:The Gestapo was created when people allowed their rights to be trampled; do you want to see that happen here - and, regardless of what your views are, given time and decisons like this, eventually it CAN happen here! It'd be somewhat harder, and therefore it'd take somewhat longer, but it is far from impossible.

I call Godwin's Law. You lose.

### Re: Supreme Court or Political Agenda?

Post by Jason Toddman » Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:38 pm

> jonny86 wrote: I call Godwin's Law. You lose.

Only if you assume that analogies involving Nazism are never valid. When it comes to discussing conservatism in politics today however, such an analogy is never invalid - not always accurate perhaps, but never invalid - are perfectly contextual, and all but inevitable.
Now, if I'd directly compared someone with a Nazi (Bush for instance), then you would have a point.
I might point out I never directly compared anything (not even the Supreme Court or any current conservatives) to Nazism here; only that it's ways could be gradually revived if we're not careful. This is, in itself, impossible to disprove and AFAIK NOT covered by Godwin's Law.
And for those people who have no idea WTF Godwin's Law is and actually give a sweet damn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Now tell me, is there a similar law where someone inevitably invokes The Bible?!?
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Supreme Court or Political Agenda?

Post by drawscore » Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:27 pm

>>>The Bush administration trampled our rights far more thoroughly than Obama has (of course, he had more time than Obama has had so far), a McCain administration would likely have trampled them at least as much as Obama's administration has had HE become president, and Romney is likely to be just another case of "New Boss; same as the Old Boss" should he win the election.<<<
Bullshit. Bush did not have a signature piece of legislation's constitutionality challenged by 26 states, and go before the Supreme Court.
Bush may not have been the brightest light in the box, but he was 1000% percent better than Obama could ever hope to be.
Drawscore

### Re: Supreme Court or Political Agenda?

Post by Jason Toddman » Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:50 pm

That is a matter of opinion, and kindly do not call MY opinions bullshit or you're just as guilty of name-calling as you whined about my doing to you earlier. Saying my opinion is bullshit is really no different than calling me a fool or a liar, and I don't like that any more than you would!
And perhaps the Patriot Act wasn't challenged by 26 states, but by God it should have been challenged by all fifty of them! And had it been Obama who'd proposed it instead of Bush, you can bet your botttom dollar that is precisely what would have happened.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Supreme Court or Political Agenda?

Post by drawscore » Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:38 pm

Perhaps "inaccurate" would have been more appropriate. My apologies for the term "bullshit." Suffice it to say that I was off on a weekend jaunt, and my flight was late getting in, resulting in a missed connection. Such circumstances tend to make one a bit short and testy, and I'm afraid I took it out on you in my reply.
As for opinions, they are like armpits, in that everyone has a couple, and they generally stink.
Drawscore

### Re: Supreme Court or Political Agenda?

Post by Jason Toddman » Sat Apr 14, 2012 6:37 am

Even 'inaccurate' might be contestable (it would after all be a matter of your opinion unless you could back your assertion up with facts that I could not or would not dispute - something you rarely actually do) but at least it would not be insulting.
In any case, Godwin's Law or not, I still contend that civil rights in this country are being squeezed, and the Supreme Court is no friend of disadvantaged people and never really was. The notorious Dred Scott decision upholding slavery is adequate proof of that!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott
Granted the Supreme Court has also passed decisions that increased rights (Roe V Wade, the Miranda rights, etc) but I think those would never passed either under the conservative court we have at the moment, and some people with too many advantages themselves and too little respect for other peoples' rights are in fact clamoring to have them reversed.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Supreme Court or Political Agenda?

Post by drawscore » Sat Apr 14, 2012 6:18 pm

With a little bit of time, and free of the airport for the moment, I can take a better look. Your contention that >>>The Bush administration trampled our rights far more thoroughly than Obama has<<< is also a matter of opinion. One with which I happen to disagree.
And that clamor you are hearing from the people, is the clamor to override or repeal ObamaCare, and toss it into the trash can where it deserves to be.
Drawscore

### Re: Supreme Court or Political Agenda?

Post by Jason Toddman » Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:12 pm

> drawscore wrote:With a little bit of time, and free of the airport for the moment, I can take a better look. Your contention that >>>The Bush administration trampled our rights far more thoroughly than Obama has<<< is also a matter of opinion. One with which I happen to disagree.

Yes , you would, wouldn't you? What a surprise.

> drawscore wrote:
> And that clamor you are hearing from the people, is the clamor to override or repeal ObamaCare, and toss it into the trash can where it deserves to be.
> Drawscore

The only clamor I hear is from the overly vocal few like yourself, most of whom who probably don't even know what it does and does not do other than what selfish special interests tell them in the first place. In any case, it probably does not matter. It's not ordinary folk like us who get to make these kinds of decisions, but certain special interests who care nothing about anyone for themselves. Regardless of what you think of "Obamacare', it'll probably be killed by the current conservative Supreme Court anyway; but the reasons will have everything to do with politics and nothing to do with the law.
It's just one more reason why IMO the United States is losing it's status as being the best place in the world in which to live.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Supreme Court or Political Agenda?

Post by drawscore » Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:53 pm

>>>The only clamor I hear is from the overly vocal few like yourself, most of whom who probably don't even know what it does and does not do<<<
Apparently, the former Speaker of the House, San Fran Nan, didn't know what was in it, either. "We have to pass the bill so we can see what's in it." Brilliant statement. I ought to send her a broom, so she'll never be without transportation.
>>>Regardless of what you think of "Obamacare', it'll probably be killed by the current conservative Supreme Court anyway; but the reasons will have everything to do with politics and nothing to do with the law.<<<
I expect there will be sound legal reasoning in both the decision and dissent. But if you want to talk political hacks, two words: Elena Kagan. Former solicitor general who worked on ObamaCare, and yet, did not recuse herself as called for under the law. If our Supreme Court justices have no respect for the law, why should anyone else?
Of course, her recusal would mean nothing, as if she did step away from the case, five votes would still be needed to overturn ObamaCare. A 4-4 tie would affirm it. It's just the principle.
Other Obama political hacks are Eric Holder and Janet Napalitano. Worthless wastes of skin, both of them.
Drawscore

### Re: Supreme Court or Political Agenda?

Post by Jason Toddman » Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:23 pm

> drawscore wrote: Apparently, the former Speaker of the House, San Fran Nan, didn't know what was in it, either. "We have to pass the bill so we can see what's in it." Brilliant statement. I ought to send her a broom, so she'll never be without transportation.

In case it escaped you, the exact same thing was said of the Patriot Act by many members of Congresswhen IT was passed. Bet you made no fuss about THAT!

> drawscore wrote: I expect there will be sound legal reasoning in both the decision and dissent. But if you want to talk political hacks, two words: Elena Kagan. Former solicitor general who worked on ObamaCare, and yet, did not recuse herself as called for under the law. If our Supreme Court justices have no respect for the law, why should anyone else?

And how does this detract from my point, exactly?

> drawscore wrote: Of course, her recusal would mean nothing, as if she did step away from the case, five votes would still be needed to overturn ObamaCare. A 4-4 tie would affirm it. It's just the principle.
> Other Obama political hacks are Eric Holder and Janet Napalitano. Worthless wastes of skin, both of them.

I know little about either and care even less so no argument here.
Last edited by Jason Toddman on Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Supreme Court or Political Agenda?

Post by drawscore » Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:45 pm

>>>In case it escaped you, the exact same thing was said of the Patriot Act by many members of Congress when IT was passed. Bet you made no fuss about THAT!<<<
Maybe, maybe not. The difference, is that the Patriot Act was passed with bi-partisan support. ObamaCare did not get a single Republican vote, either in the House, or the Senate.
Eric Holder is Obama's attorney general, and Janet Napolitano is the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Drawscore

### Re: Supreme Court or Political Agenda?

Post by Jason Toddman » Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:55 pm

I know who they are and (basically) what they do. I just don't care to know anything further avout them or their beliefs. I study up on a lot of things, but political science is NOT one of them. Too depressing, for a start.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Supreme Court or Political Agenda?

Post by drawscore » Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:57 pm

Probably because there are too many depressing people in politics. On both sides.
Drawscore

### Re: Supreme Court or Political Agenda?

Post by Jason Toddman » Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:32 pm

Other than the fact that I think you are putting it too kindly, we are in full agreement for once.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...