Agent Monkeysee on 25/3/2006 at 00:04
Hey hey RBJ how many kids did you kill today
I CAN'T GET THAT CHANT OUT OF MY HEAD THX YOU GUYS :mad:
The anti-war movement of the '60s had much better slogans than today's anti-war movement.
Fringe on 25/3/2006 at 00:53
Hey hey GWB, something something detainee?
...I got nothin :erg:
Aja on 25/3/2006 at 00:57
guantanamo bay, gentlemen.
fett on 25/3/2006 at 03:21
Hi. I'm not RBJ am I still allowed in here?
BTW - you said 'object'....hehe huh hehe
kingofthenet on 25/3/2006 at 03:26
RGB,
I loved your thoughtful analasis, I have the same opinion, are you a Attorney(just wondering). I had a former girlfriend (who was renting) and she thought it was fine for the owner to have a key, and to conduct periodic "inspections" on the house, I told her I would never allow that, and she said to me what about in an emergency? I said , in the case of a fire or broken pipe, my landlord should "break the door down" on get a locksmith to do the lock, I will pay for damages to the door or lock, but you get no key.Am I OK legally? Another question, say I am running an illegal betting operation on my Pc, or dealing in child porn, in the US can someone "give me up" and the police gain a right to a search warrent, to my singulary owned home and computer based on non- residing "outsiders" testomony, about whats on my computer/in my house? with no actually evidence?
Headphones on 25/3/2006 at 03:29
RBJ, when is the best time to plant petunias?
Enchantermon on 25/3/2006 at 03:47
Quote Posted by kingofthenet
Another question, say I am running an illegal betting operation on my Pc, or dealing in child porn, in the US can someone "give me up" and the police gain a right to a search warrent, to my singulary owned home and computer based on non- residing "outsiders" testomony, about whats on my computer/in my house? with no actually evidence?
Hmm. I'm not sure, but wouldn't they need at
least probable cause? They can always ask to have a look around, of course.
demagogue on 25/3/2006 at 04:29
I have to say this case rubbed me the wrong way, at least the NYT article I read on it (I haven't had a chance to read the actual decision yet, although I gather it's available now). I just lost a previous post explaining why, so maybe this will be more rushed. My basic gripe is, at least the way the NYT article described it, is how much seemed to turn on which bloc felt they were better able to imagine more instances of this sort of situation arising and then have a better sense of what "our" basic intuitions would be in these situations, whether it would feel "right" that one person could ask the police in and not another -- which seemed close to one bloc trying to claim the twitch in their tummies that something was wrong was privileged over the other's steely, eye-rolling resolve that it's really not that unreasonable. There's an edge of arbitrariness to it, if you follow me.
I don't want to overstate my wariness. *All* cases that inquire into what is "reasonable" have an air of arbitrariness, as judges are called on to become the conscious of the People and fill in, what's not supposed to be their personal intuition so much as what they gather would be the general intuition of reasonableness, but may as well be their personal intution anyway. It just seemed particularly strong in this case. So you see both sides throwing out lots of different situations, friend-roomates, assigned dorm rooms, coops with a lot of people, apartment suites, inviting dates or old friends inside ... and each had their plausibility. But the problem with turning a decision on this sort of thing is that it's hard to give a really credible answer as to which intuitions are supposed to have priority.
Actually, everything I've mentioned isn't necessarily troublesome per se. It's just, in this case, you can almost *see* the politics going on in the background, particularly leaking through the acrimony going on in some passages (like some posts you'll see around here now and then. But it's a strange position the judges are put in. Normally, you're not supposed to criticise another person's intuition as "wrong", nor are you supposed to claim that your intuition should stand-in for the group's. But in this case, this is exactly what the Justices are called-on to do)... and because the "reasonableness" question left such a wide-space for the judges discretion to play with, the whole case has an air that it's just filling politics in that space and then throwing together a bunch of thought-experiments to try to sell the deal. Of course, politics is always going on in a lot of charged cases, but as a lawyer I just feel more warm and fuzzy when the case is sold on strong legal, even technical details, lots of good legal analogies, etc ... so even if it is filling-in for politics I have faith that it is still the right decision. I like being left with the feeling that *yeah, this is what the 4th amendment really is after; this opinion drives right to the core of what we think of privacy and how we manage it legally.* And neither side did a very good job IMO of doing that, at least from the gloss I got from the NYTs article.
As for my feelings about the outcome, I can sympathize with the idea that there's got to be some hard lines to the 4th amedment and the fact this case was argued in the wake of the phone-bugging and the pretty terrible track-record the administration has had generally with privacy (Patriot Act, etc.), I can live with the line being drawn here, even if it's a little mismatched with similar cases (if the other non-consenting person is absent, 1 person's consent is suddenly ok). I just wished they'd have done a better job of selling it legally to me so I'd feel more comfortable with it.
Jennie&Tim on 25/3/2006 at 05:55
Thanks RBJ. I think the bloc voting by the "conservative" judges was interesting, particularly as the far right tries to sell itself on being in favor of individual liberties and responsibilities; yet here they undermining them. I'm not quite sure what meme is driving all three "conservative" justices to dissent here, all are supposed to be in favor of an original construction, yet here, in my view, want to toss it; and there's no obvious left/right dichotomy in this case.
Is there a way for a Justice to be removed or does Congress need to rewrite the laws or constitution more stringently to fix the problems these justices seem bound to cause?
Mr.Duck on 25/3/2006 at 06:34
Quote Posted by ignatios
i came for the cockporn
i mean popcorn
course you did love, now, have a seat and wait for me to get freaky on you
(cornchips...yum....I brought the salsa, and not the lame-ass company-made type, but the hand-made....).
