The official start to the Police State - and why we need every Democratic voter to choose Obama

[Divine Discontent]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/23/america/scotus.php
The Associated Press
Published: April 23, 2008
WASHINGTON: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police can conduct searches and seize evidence after arrests that may turn out to have violated state law.

The unanimous decision came in a case from Portsmouth, Virginia, where city detectives seized crack cocaine from a motorist after arresting him for a traffic ticket offense. David Lee Moore was pulled over for driving on a suspended license. The violation is a minor crime in Virginia and calls for the police to issue a court summons and to let the driver go.

Instead, the detectives arrested Moore and prosecutors in the case said that drugs taken from him in a subsequent search could be used against him as evidence.

"We reaffirm against a novel challenge what we have signaled for half a century," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court. Scalia said that when officers have probable cause to believe a person had committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest and to search the suspect to safeguard evidence and to ensure their own safety.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is so typical that the B*sh cronies say they respect what the founding fathers intended and do their best to interpret - what bullshit!

So what this shows is that the police had no right to arrest him, but it is perfectly and reasonably okay to search his property, and then when they find something they can therefore say - THERE - see, that'w why we arrested you, not that other thing!
The NAZIS did that, I believe.

Welcome to your new America that the B*sh Nazis have been pushing for over the past 30 years.

This verdict is one that we as a people come to regret as various leaders who voice disdain against the neocons are arrested on false grounds, then, either they're found with something in their possession that is ultimately illegal, or they are planted with something since the faulty arrest can be ignored since they will 'find' something to throw ya in prison for anyhow. And heavens forbid you keep those liberal bumper stickers on your car, or sport an Obama '08 item! More of a reason to falsely arrest and 'find' something.

Reading or viewing material:
The Guardian: How B*sh's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
Soros compares B*sh to Nazis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DuafAqAHrc



visit: www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable for pro-liberal & Obama items and anti-McSame stuff!

[Birthmark]

1. Um,

It was a unanimous vote. I don't think that one vote would have been the difference maker in that decision. But I'm no mathematician.

[Fresh_Start]

2. you are not allowed to be logical on DU

how dare you not react correctly to the "be very scared" signal

[Divine Discontent]

6. making the easy pun is a political tactic

The BFEE has chipped away the protections found in our nation's founding father's works that set forth protections against a rogue gov't - and this ruling today proves it's about done.


Hell, why are we so naive to even think that the election isn't rigged and we're all arguing for Clinton or Obama when the outcome is potentially already decided by these Nazis!

You go ahead and avoid the ruling sent down by the SCOTUS that went against the VA Supreme Court's ruling on this very grave case. This is a highly disturbing outcome. But, mock all you want, it is the net.

[Divine Discontent]

3. I know what the vote was, and I read the article, and was disgusted how

Ginsburg just trotted right over the fact that he shouldn't have been arrested b/c it was a minor traffic violation.

The startling point is - they can pull you over, take you off the street, yank you from the grocery store, whatever - say you did something, arrest you and be in the wrong, and the do a full search of you and whatever property you have upon you at the time - without being legally permitted to because, well, this ruling by the SCOTUS makes it okay, because if they find something on you, then hey, who cares - you had something on you after all - am I wrong here? If so, please explain to me.

Another concern I have, is that if they really screw up and 'think' you have something, and arrest you, and hope they'll find what they think you have - but don't - wouldn't they want to plant that upon your belongings to protect themselves? This has been done throughout history many times. And, speaking for myself, I am a big mouth for rights, but I carry nothing illegal on me, ever, and I don't do drugs - but I could see a right-wing cop or the gov't using this ruling to get at people they don't like in a much easier fashion because the ruling allows you to be kept in custody while they have free reign of your property.

pro nazi rally in America (don't think they're gone) -

[Birthmark]

8. I think you're correct on all counts.

But I think your reaction is illogical. Face it, the Constitution is over. Obama isn't going to change that. Clinton isn't going to change that. In all likelihood, imo, both will further extend the powers of the Presidency. The rot is far, far too deep to be fixed by a single election.

And don't ask me what to do about it. I don't have the slightest idea. Sorry.

[Divine Discontent]

9. hi birthmark

well if your thoughts are true, and you agree, but also believe there is no hope - then why should we even pay any attention? Or why isn't there a mass revolution of ideas against them, right? I believe the people will wake up - but not before it's nearly too late - I'm just stoking the thoughts of DUers with this SCOTUS decision to see if others feel the same, or if they're all asleep like most of the sheep - obviously you're not, and obviously you feel there's no reason to be upset like I am because neither Obama or Clinton can stop or would be willing to stop it from getting worse - I believe that Clinton would reject some of this push to the right, and I believe Obama will after a few years of dealing with the economy and war. But for the first several years - the next president is going to be too busy keeping us out of another great depression that georgie has nearly led us to with this march of war he's on.

[Birthmark]

10. Why should we pay attention?

I intend to stop paying attention. Very soon.

The reason there is no mass revolution is the same reason that it's pointless to try to prop up the Constitution. Deep down, very few people care. They are more concerned with the mundane aspects of life than they are the metaphysical discussion of what freedom, liberty, and the Constitution mean. To them, it means no more than last night's baseball scores mean to me.

I'll admire those who try to stem the tide, but I'll also feel sorry for them. It's a task doomed to failure and probably puts them at great personal risk. They stand a fair chance of being branded "terrorists" or "terrorist sympthizers." That's just the times we live in.

Over the course of the next month, my wife and I will be wrapping up all of our business affairs and disappearing into the far background of America, where we will try to provide for the care of our disabled child and live out our remaining years very, very quietly and very non-politically.

Good luck to all those that choose to fight the good fight. You'll need it.

[Divine Discontent]

14. I commend you for doing for your family what you can

and I wish you nothing but the best in your solace. I pray for all of us in the bleak times, and I never spoke those words before Shrub came into power, even during the Reagan and Bush I years. I feel so much has been lost, and our society is hell bent on ignoring the govt and just happy watching DWTS (dancing show). I know entertainment is important, but a majority of the viewers have not a care about what the SCOTUS, POTUS or PNAC has been working towards the past 8 years, nor a clue about what those acronyms mean.

Again, my best to you and your family, thanks for hoping we make it in our battle against fascism - for all of our sake.

[Birthmark]

15. Thanks

And my best to you and those like you who will take up the fight. Wish I could join you. :)

[eallen]

18. I think you're wrong on what the ruling says.

The question wasn't whether the arrest was without probable cause -- e.g., if the cops had made up the fact that the guy was driving with a suspended license -- but whether the police somehow else violated law in making the arrest. I suspect the court's reasoning was that absence of probable cause is a violation of the suspect's 4th amendment rights, but that their screwing up in other fashion isn't necessarily that. Arguing on the side of the decision, one can imagine all sorts of other ways the police might screw up that wouldn't violate probable cause. For example, they might arrest someone who just shot a victim, and then transport the gun in some fashion that violates a state gun law, but that doesn't violate the chain of custody or the evidentiary rules. Should the gun then be precluded from evidence?

OK, I don't know the details and haven't followed this case. If I read up on it, I might or might not agree with the ruling. But I don't think it does what you think it does. In particular, the police still have to have probable cause that a crime was committed. It doesn't open the door to searches where the police can "arrest you and be in the wrong" about that. It allows them to be in the wrong about something else.

No doubt the argument made was that the police wouldn't have conducted the search had they followed state law. But the court decided that isn't a 4th amendment issue.

:hippie:

[Unsane]

4. I doubt Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a Nazi.

Just saying.

[crankychatter]

5. all unconstitutional legislation is illegal - the supreme court can be impeached

and should be

[Divine Discontent]

7. I like your point, thank you very much! excellent EOM

[Birthmark]

11. By whom should they be impeached?

Congress? Don't make me laugh!!

Too late. :rofl:

[crankychatter]

12. should and could are two different things

get it?

[Birthmark]

13. Sure, in theory Congress can impeach

But they don't even enforce their own subpoenas, so the odds of them impeaching anyone look pretty remote.

[crankychatter]

16. yeah the smart money is on the money

you're right

[1776Forever]

17. Happening in AZ - McCain country - Phoenix Mayor Gordon calls for FBI investigation of Arpaio

Phoenix Mayor Gordon calls for FBI investigation of Arpaio
Letter to feds questions tactics; sheriff calls him 'disconnected'

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/04/13/20080413gordonarpaio0413.html

Casey Newton and JJ Hensley - Apr. 13, 2008
The Arizona Republic

In the wake of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office crackdowns on illegal immigrants throughout the Valley, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon is calling on the FBI to investigate whether Sheriff Joe Arpaio has violated any civil-rights laws.

In an April 4 letter to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Gordon asked the Justice Department's civil-rights division and the FBI to probe what Gordon calls a "pattern and practice of conduct that includes discriminatory harassment, improper stops, searches and arrests."

Justice Department officials promised to review Gordon's letter but declined further comment.

Arpaio said it was ironic that Gordon drafted the letter on the same day that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officials from Washington observed his deputies arresting residents and illegal immigrants in Guadalupe and approved of the sheriff's work.

"I think the mayor is disconnected from the people he represents and he doesn't get the point. Now he's going to Washington to confuse the issue and try to get the public against me," Arpaio said Saturday. "It's not going to work. I've done nothing wrong."

[Divine Discontent]

19. thank you, and,

I think we'd all be appalled to find out how many times a day that a person with a badge stops someone for a reason that is racist, bigoted, without a true purpose, etc. that is truly not in response to an illegal action by the one confronted by the law enforcement personnel.

[OneBlueSky]

20. why was this vote unanimous? . . . are there really no guardians of civil liberties . . .

left on the highest court in the land? . . . if that's the case, we're in even more trouble than we thought . . .

[L0oniX]

21. ...

[Jed Dilligan]

22. Disgusting pigs, every single one of them

I look forward to the day when THEY are judged.