Supreme Court ruling: Carpenter versus the United States.

That doesn’t mean we infringe upon the freedoms of the majority. Conservatives would be giddy at the prospect of giving up most of their rights under the guise of security. You do it with domestic law enforcement all of the time

It sickens me to have to agree with this petty faggot, but it is correct.

"Conservatives" have no problem with SWAT Teams kicking in doors looking for pot.

Many would like if Nanny Bush had locked people up for being queer.

Plenty more would rejoice at having government force prayers to Jesus in school.

You can't pick and choose where government uses the power you give it. The only recourse is to limit it's power.


.
 
That doesn’t mean we infringe upon the freedoms of the majority. Conservatives would be giddy at the prospect of giving up most of their rights under the guise of security. You do it with domestic law enforcement all of the time

A couple months back you were singing our praises about your bigger paycheck, although I find it hard to believe you work for a living. You might want to remember those who went out the windows at the WTC rather than burn to death thanks to "muslim men with long beards". You're as wishy washy as it gets...one week a Con, the next a Lib.
 
This is what conservatism comes to. Supporting the police state. This after the so-called conservatives became the tax collector for the welfare state. The phony conservatives are the ones who need to be impeached. This should have been a 9-0 decision.

Police states are the ones who come after the citizens' guns, commie. Another example of the left accusing us of doing what they ARE doing...that's why you're still throwing a shit-fit over Trump getting elected....you know how close we came to being under your masters' boots.
 
BTW, it was Barry the Fairy's CIA, DOJ and FBI, and IRS, and every other agency under that mutt's control who turned on the American people with their Stalinist tactics. He and the rest of his fellow travelers belong in Leavenworth awaiting the rope.
 
Last edited:
I am pleased with this ruling, but I am a little shocked it was so close.
 
Sure hope terrorists aren't using cell phones that the law won't allow to be hacked.

Why don’t we just spend the entire constitution and then you don’t have to wet your bed at night worrying about Muslim men with long beards

You obviously aren't worried about it. But I'd bet the dead in San Bernardino would have loved to have known what was coming

Oh and you can wet your bed when you piss yourself with joy over the ruling.

I am pleased with the ruling as should be every freedom loving American. You may want to look in the mirror and ask yourself why you are not.
TAZ why did they move this?? Said it wasn't political?? A conservative judge voting with 4 liberal judges isn't political?
 
Sure hope terrorists aren't using cell phones that the law won't allow to be hacked.

Why don’t we just spend the entire constitution and then you don’t have to wet your bed at night worrying about Muslim men with long beards

You obviously aren't worried about it. But I'd bet the dead in San Bernardino would have loved to have known what was coming

Oh and you can wet your bed when you piss yourself with joy over the ruling.

I am pleased with the ruling as should be every freedom loving American. You may want to look in the mirror and ask yourself why you are not.
TAZ why did they move this?? Said it wasn't political?? A conservative judge voting with 4 liberal judges isn't political?

Wasn’t me
 
Sure hope terrorists aren't using cell phones that the law won't allow to be hacked.

Why don’t we just spend the entire constitution and then you don’t have to wet your bed at night worrying about Muslim men with long beards

You obviously aren't worried about it. But I'd bet the dead in San Bernardino would have loved to have known what was coming

Oh and you can wet your bed when you piss yourself with joy over the ruling.

I am pleased with the ruling as should be every freedom loving American. You may want to look in the mirror and ask yourself why you are not.
TAZ why did they move this?? Said it wasn't political?? A conservative judge voting with 4 liberal judges isn't political?

Wasn’t me
Didn't think so Either Facal or Will
 
I remember when Republicans were afraid of big brother.

Now, Republicans ARE big brother.
 
Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court on Friday said the government generally needs a warrant if it wants to track an individual's location through cell phone records over an extended period of time.

The ruling is a major victory for advocates of increased privacy rights who argued more protections were needed when it comes to the government obtaining information from a third party such as a cell phone company.
The 5-4 opinion in Carpenter v. United States, was written by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the four most liberal justices.
It is a loss for the Justice Department, which had argued that an individual has diminished privacy rights when it comes to information that has been voluntarily shared with someone else.


The opinion, which was limited to cell-site location data, continues a recent trend at the court to boost privacy rights in the digital era and clarifies court precedent as it applies to data held by a third party.




Why thank Roberts only?

There are the other 4 judges who voted the same way he did.

They just happen to be liberals though.

Interesting. The other four conservatives voted against our privacy rights.
 
Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court on Friday said the government generally needs a warrant if it wants to track an individual's location through cell phone records over an extended period of time.

The ruling is a major victory for advocates of increased privacy rights who argued more protections were needed when it comes to the government obtaining information from a third party such as a cell phone company.
The 5-4 opinion in Carpenter v. United States, was written by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the four most liberal justices.
It is a loss for the Justice Department, which had argued that an individual has diminished privacy rights when it comes to information that has been voluntarily shared with someone else.


The opinion, which was limited to cell-site location data, continues a recent trend at the court to boost privacy rights in the digital era and clarifies court precedent as it applies to data held by a third party.




Why thank Roberts only?

There are the other 4 judges who voted the same way he did.

They just happen to be liberals though.

Interesting. The other four conservatives voted against our privacy rights.
starting with thomas they're scum
 
That doesn’t mean we infringe upon the freedoms of the majority. Conservatives would be giddy at the prospect of giving up most of their rights under the guise of security. You do it with domestic law enforcement all of the time

A couple months back you were singing our praises about your bigger paycheck, although I find it hard to believe you work for a living. You might want to remember those who went out the windows at the WTC rather than burn to death thanks to "muslim men with long beards".

How long are you guys going to keep using 9-11 as an excuse to shred the Constitution?

You're as wishy washy as it gets...one week a Con, the next a Lib.

When both conservatives and liberals hate me it’s because I’m usually right.
 
Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court on Friday said the government generally needs a warrant if it wants to track an individual's location through cell phone records over an extended period of time.

The ruling is a major victory for advocates of increased privacy rights who argued more protections were needed when it comes to the government obtaining information from a third party such as a cell phone company.
The 5-4 opinion in Carpenter v. United States, was written by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the four most liberal justices.
It is a loss for the Justice Department, which had argued that an individual has diminished privacy rights when it comes to information that has been voluntarily shared with someone else.


The opinion, which was limited to cell-site location data, continues a recent trend at the court to boost privacy rights in the digital era and clarifies court precedent as it applies to data held by a third party.




Why thank Roberts only?

There are the other 4 judges who voted the same way he did.

They just happen to be liberals though.

Interesting. The other four conservatives voted against our privacy rights.
Roberts is a conservative; most conservatives are hostile to citizens’ rights and protected liberties, and as authoritarians most conservatives favor the power of the state over the rights of the people.

The OP is ‘thankful’ that Roberts rejected that aspect of wrongheaded conservative dogma and voted to protect the rights of the people.

The liberal justices need no ‘thanks’ because they consistently vote to protect the rights of the people and restrict the authority of the state when it seeks to limit citizens’ rights.

That conservatives vote against our privacy rights should come as no surprise.
 
I feel much safer now that liberal judges have made it harder for police agencies to catch criminals and terrorists. .... :thup:
They really need to put a muzzle on that law because it was written at a low tech level and the American public needs to be protected from the "big" bother direction. It should have the same protections as the phone tap. I should say I am a retired LEO and see the danger of info-taping can lead to.
 
How long are you guys going to keep using 9-11 as an excuse to shred the Constitution?

When both conservatives and liberals hate me it’s because I’m usually right.

The Constitution isn't a suicide-pact....it was so brilliantly conceived that it allowed FDR to put japanese-Americans in internment camps to prevent mass espionage and sabotage. Yet DHS hasn't done anything of the kind to muslim-Americans who are just as dangerous...or were until Trump snuffed ISIS. You snivel about your "rights" being violated yet I doubt anybody is listening in on your telephone calls. A warrant takes hours even days to get and a judge may say no just before a shopping center is shot up or a bridge gets blown up during rush hour. They can listen in on my calls until they nod out from boredom, and I'm a hell of a lot more interesting than you are or the others in this thread with paranoid delusions they're being spied on. Your "you conservatives" comment comes down to what is good for you personally (tax cuts) but what you don't like should be banned....that's pure commiecrat. Maybe some day you'll decide what you believe in instead of depending on situation ethics ie/wishy washy.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top