Its those Iranian Clerics we got put on our 'Supreme Court' Remind me to bribe my son's way into some big name school with a 'charitable donation' and then promptly get him his cleric robs when he graduates. As soon as he can think exactly like someone else, he'll be perfect 'Supreme Court' material.

Hello folks, are we still the shining city on the hill or the city surrounded by razor barbwire?

Our constitution, our most sacred document as a country is meaningless!

We have lost most of our civil liberties through the passage of the Patriot Act and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the new National Defense Resources Preparedness Act (NDRP)! They have authorized the use of spy drones in American skies! You can be surveilled by any number of Federal agencies, have your phone and computer tapped, bank, medical, and private records accessed! You can be arrested without gaining access to an attorney or a trial. We are molested at the airports or radiated for “security”. And just recently added National Defense Resources Preparedness (NDRP) which comes on the heels of NDAA. This Executive Order allows the government to take pretty much whatever it wants including crops, farm equipment, vehicles, boats, aircraft and fuel to “prepare” for the national defense. This includes making people work for free. You think I’m kidding about the free labor? Here’s a line straight from the EO that says, “. . . to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation. . .” This is authorized even in peace time!

NYPD’s aggressive street policing program, called “stop-and-frisk,” which predominantly targets low-income minority neighborhoods. In 2011, the program stopped and searched more than 500,000 New Yorkers, 85 percent of them black or Latino. This program is moving to a city near you!

We have created another cartel the “Prison Industrial Complex”! We have outsourced our incarceration of United States citizens which consists of over 6 million prisoners! This exceeds the number of prisoners held in the gulags of the former Soviet Union at any point in history! All objectivity of prison reform has flown out the window in exchange for profits! No prisoners no profits! Are there prison lobbyists? You bet and loaded with cash compliments of you and me!

How did we let it get to this point!

No the constitution and bill of rights are not meaningless - they were recently read aloud by members of congress (probably the first time most of them had even looked at the documents) on the capitol floor. Grant it parts of were left out, but gosh darn it made me so proud to be a true patriotic American to have such a fine group of blow holes defend and celebrate our country.

13 million people a year incarcerated, good grief at that rate we'll all be strip searched in 23 years.

It seems the only people that are dangerous are those in the Government..

TSA does this and that, Corzine and major fraud, examples everyday of the corruption at all levels.

Is America arming itself against itself?

Unbelievable...

Eric-661783,

Grant it parts of were left out,...

That's "our" current House of Representatives: when it comes to the USA Constitution, "parts [are] left out."

The current Supreme Court could not get 1+1 right.

strip searches also involve anal and vagina cavity searches; Kennedy joined with the conservative wing to make it a 5-4 vote; wake up folks, we are heading toward a police state, Patriot act, American citizen detention without trial, warrant less searches of you home, seizure of all your property is a agency suspects you of being a terrorist(terrorist defined as a person who threatens the peace and security of the Government of the United States), we are fast losing our Republic .

Trust Verify, your conspiracy theories are troubling and I think you need to be helped with your paranoia. Neither the NDAA or the NDRA are new legislation. The amendment in the NDAA was an extension of one in the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq Act, which was set to expire. The NDRA is an executive order based on the Defense Production Act of 1950, and is almost identical to the NDRA that Bill Clinton signed in 1994. And the quote that you cropped is talking about NDR "units" that are for volunteers, and therefore would not be compensated.

LOL! Read history much?

Which party freed the slaves in the US?

An historic party that no longer exists in American politics despite sharing a name with one of our current parties....

wake up folks, we are heading toward a police state

Too late...we're already there.

Maybe a random strip search of the SCOTUS is in order to be sure they aren't going to terrorize the citizenry with their political rulings. What's next -- tagging everyone so we can be followed and mined further for data that might well be used against us. Welcome to the Brave New World where we are all guilty and in need of probing.

Cops just get to be more and more frisky.

The Airdog,

@Una Dagger - LOL! Read history much?
Which party freed the slaves in the US?

"Read"ing does NOT equal comprehension. By today's standards, Lincoln (a FEDERALIST) would be considered a Democrat. What party is NOW the party of federalism...?

If you insist on having it both ways, be a Republican!

Please peddle your nonsense somewhere else.

@ The Airdog - LOL, if you read your history much and understood exactly why slavery was ended, you would know exactly why the Repubs did it...Money. The Republican party is now a different horse than it was in Lincolns day, but the one constant is thier love for money. (As long as it does not fall into the wrong hands...like those pesky middle class people)

Apparently, we have discovered a country with 300 million criminals and terrorists, when do we send in the military?

Only the ideologues would attempt to place the blame for this strip search nonsense on republicans. Who would they blame for the abusive TSA groping policies?

One poster stated that in response to who freed the slaves question that today's republicans only share the same name. However, the truth is that the democrats of the 50's are the republicans of today and today's democrats are the radical leftists of the 50's.

This in no way means I agree with this Supreme Court decision since we have relinquished far too many of our rights and have accorded police with abusive powers.

They have gutted the 4th amendment and Franklin's statement about giving up liberty for the illusion of security is more valid today than ever.

Welcome to the collective.

You DO have a right to health care, you get it through a job, or buy it yourself. I'm not buying it for you.

Sorry to burst your little conservative bubble, but you're already paying to cover health care for uninsured people. It's through higher insurance premiums that help cover at least a portion of emergency room care that hospitals dole out to people who don't have their own coverage.

Spread em for less government intrusion!

DrowningGrover

LOL! Read history much?

Which party freed the slaves in the US?

An historic party that no longer exists in American politics despite sharing a name with one of our current parties....

Are you sure? It looks like those elements you are refering to have taken over that party lock stock and barrel.

I think Supreme Court Justices that vote in favor should be stripped searched before they put on the black robe next time.

@Airdog...read much?

Because nothing changes, including party idealogy, in the course of 150 years right? Try again, champ. This ain't your grandpa's GOP.

You voted republican...this is your mess. You all repeat the word ,"freedom", "Less government", then you vote repub and have them take away your SocSec, medicare, post office, healthcare preexisting condition safeguard, your voting rights, and now they get to shove their hands up your butt and vaginas over a traffic stop because Timothy Mcveigh was pulled over and caught with a traffic stop. Maybe the Supreme knuckleheads should be mandated to buy and eat brocholi, they are lacking in some deficiency somewhere!

This "seems" like "legislating from the bench."

Were not Conservatives against activism in the courts?

What happened to "strict Constructionism?"

What ever happened to Conservative's "small government platform?"

What has happened to America?

Mary-529068

Ok Timetraveler come back down to earth!!! The Affordable Care Act says that if you CAN AFFORD insurance then you are mandated to buy it so you and I don't have to pay for the free-loaders. which makes our premium go up. Those that do not have a job, and there are several unemployed are not covered unless by medicaid. SO shut your pie hole til you read the damned bill!

Mary-529068: Where does the money come from to pay for the illegal/undocumented aliens? Where does the money come from that pays for the medicaid. Where does the money come from to subsidize those that cannot afford the MANDATED coverage.

Why do Muslim employers get a waiver? Why do individual Muslims get a blanket waiver from having to purchase the MANDATED coverage?

Mary, please remember that everything must be paid for somehow by someone.

As our founding fathers weep from the grave. One more step people. Maybe over dramatizing it some but if we don't do it now, before long it will be too late - though it may already be that way.

I have not read them or seen the movie but everyone knows how popular the Hunger Games are- well from the basic outline, that I know of, for what goes on in the books and the world that the characters live in, it appears if we stay on track like we are, it may no longer be just a story. It would seem we are heading to a version of society that is similar to what one reads in that book. Limited rights and an elite ruling class with absolute power over those below them - including signing them up for a fight to the death no questions asked.

Uthaclena's cite of Ben Franklin's quote is spot on. That man wasn't perfect but he did have alot of wisdom much of which can still be applied today. It is time we, the American citizens, finally come together and demand an end to this circus that is Washington DC. The common man's rights are trampled and thrown out more and more everyday. Our politicians ignore real issues and play kick the can instead. They are bought off and their only goal is to pander and stay in power as long as they can. The system gets more twisted and convoluted everyday with no end in sight. The only way we will find that end is if we all come together and stop the us and them crap. Wake up! Who cares if it is a republican or a democrat! One is stealing from your right pocket the other from the left. At the end of the day theses guys are the one in the same and are completely out of touch with the reality that the average American citizen must deal with. So my request to everyone who wants to see this all as republican or democrat is to stop it and finally see the big picture. Its a two headed snake folks and the only way to beat is if we finally start standing together and say enough. No more extremists, no more playing by a different set of rules, no more trashing the Constitution. It is time American, time we stand together, end this madness and put our country back on track.

Mary-529068, why are you telling someone to read a bill when even Congress (who passed it!) hasn't even read it? And it isn't the issue for the story anyway.

The fact that the SC believes it is too much trouble for the jails/prisons to have the charges available at intake is rather unsettling.

"People detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals," the court said.

With that kind of logic, people not detained for anything can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals. Watch out, bend over, and take it like a true American. All for the good of the nation, right Supreme Court?

It is time

You better watch out. They can strip your citizenship for suggesting the overthrow of the government using HR 3166

If it was not for a Republican congress and Republican leaders, such as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr., the civil rights laws would never have been passed.

The Democrats were the ones that founded the KKK. John Kennedy voted AGAINST the Civil Rights amendment, prior to becoming President, as did many Democratic Senators in 1964. Robert Byrd (KKK recruiter) even filibustered for 57+days to KILL the bill, but was over-ruled by vote. George Wallace (segregationist) and Bull Connor (releasing his police dogs on protesting black people) were also Democrats.

A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Democrat icons like George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Bull Connor, and Robert Byrd (KKK recruiter) remained Democrats. Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King remained Republicans.

You DO have a right to health care, you get it through a job, or buy it yourself. I'm not buying it for you. I already pay a huge chunk of my income for all sorts of government spending, including welfare for the people who breed offspring they can't feed. I don't owe you anything.

I would think that conservatives would want everyone to have health insurance. Currently, responsible Americans who carry health insurance cover the health-care bills of free riders. In fact, if you have health insurance, you have been paying $1,017 a year more to cover folks who don’t have health insurance. This is “welfare” that conservatives love to complain about. I think the only reason they are against it is because it’s Obama’s idea. People die every day because they didn’t have the kind of health insurance Justice Alito enjoys.

It is Time,

Yes, this is madness!

It is easy for the powerful to make these infringing laws.

The police do not stop the elite.

If by the "law" the privileged are stopped, they will never be strip-searched.

They do not have to worry nor care about the majority population suffering such oppressions.

The United States is NOT the greatest country in the world, not even the top 10.

Hello It is time, well said. Hopefully people will realize that we are being systematically divided to argue with each other while the powers that be take advantage of our trusting nature. We are all one and need the same things to survive.

It is time American, time we stand together, end this madness and put our country back on track.

That would require cooperation, commitment to a cause, and the willingness to give up one's life for the betterment of your fellow citizen. Fat chance of any of those issues being conquered enough to rally a nation to fight against it's own government. The politicians know exactly what they are doing by keeping this nation divided along racial, political, and socio-economic lines and constantly at each others throats. Divided we will never be effective in a revolt or revolution and divided we fail and fall. What's crazy is no one even sees the subtle way this is happening.

Losing freedoms for security... Security for whom? The rich? Because YOU are being stripsearched.

The Supreme Court has just f'd up. They will not understand that this is a bad law until it blows up in their face (similar to Florida's Stand Your Ground Law). Bad laws have a way of doing just that; blowing up in people's faces. When some rich influential person is strip searched (or their son or daughter) then the law will be struck down. When a police officer is shot because of this law, maybe the republican members of the Supreme Court will pull their heads out of their butts.

timetravelr100, (#1.11)

The President signed the extension of the Patriot Act, not an "enhancement" of its powers. He did so minutes before it was set to expire. President Obama was in favor of some dialing down and addition of added protections against abuse. Congress passed it. Some Democrats and one lone Republican, Rand Paul, wanted scale backs on the Act's authorities too. They didn't really get anything. Republicans as a whole, pushed the bill through wanting no changes to reduce its powers, but in a several cases just the opposite. The bill passed with a veto proof majority. Had the President not signed it, the expiration posed serious consequences to ungoing efforts. Had he vetoed it, it would have been overridden. He signed the bill with autopen, suggesting his reluctance to completely agree with what was in it.

As for the NDAA, the President is on record as wanting significant language changes. He got some, however the legislation was written in a way to allow a broad interpretation. Again, it was primarily Republicans resisting any narrowing of the authority. Again the bill passed with a very large veto proof majority. A veto would not have changed any thing.

Upon signing the bill, President Obama included a signing statement. This was to clarify his objections to parts of the bill and clarify the interpretation that the DOJ would use under his administration. In his signing statement attached to the NDAA, President Obama made it clear that the language about detentions does not apply to US citizens.

In the second paragraph of his NDAA signing statement, Obama stated:

“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.”

The President also explained why he was signing the NDAA:

“Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.”

The facts should be pretty clear that what was in these two bills, was hardly what President Obama wanted. It is easy to sit back and say, "He signed it, so it's his." But that is far from accurate. Congress writes the bills, not the President. The President can veto bills, but they can also be overridden. Vetoing anything he doesn't 100% agree with is a foolish strategy, particularly when the bill comes to him having passed with a "veto proof" majority.

Some like to criticize President Obama and suggest some unspoken agenda with the signing of these two bills. But like you, they tend not to tell the whole story and take the single "fact" of his signature and twist it out of context.

Well I hope the Supreme's enjoy their strip search at their next traffic stop.

Another fascist ruling from the the conservatives who shout freedom at every opportunity, but actually are working as hard as they can to strip you of your freedom.

America, do you finally understand? If not now, when? Will you still be shouting USA! USA! USA! as every last true freedom is stripped away?

Or, has the right-wing media made you so afraid of "Mexicans" and "Liberals" ans "Socialists" and a black president that you can no longer see that your country has been sold to the highest bidder and your former rights are an inconvenience that needs to be eliminated?

America, do you finally understand?

Every time I think I could not possibly despise the Republican / conservative / evangelical element of my county more than I already do, they prove me wrong.

Indeed, "how did we let it get to this point"... this was a free nation once... how very sad.

Just remember what the cons have been telling us for years-----if you haven't done anything wrong, you have no need to fear anything. They forgot to tell the Supreme Court that.

Looks like the USA is officially turning into a police state. This is the definition of 'guilty till proven innocent'. The terrorists don't need to attack us again. They've already succeeded into destroying everything our country stands for unless we the people kick out ALL of these freedom killing fascist pigs in our government.

I know many, many people who vote republican and not even one of them is in favor this bs. Please stop attacking people you do not know and put the blame where it belongs, power hungry politicians. I agree with the poster who said that our founding fathers weep from the grave. These kinds of things WILL lead to some sort of civil war eventually, and these things will be this country's downfall. For the record, there really are many of us who are willing to die for freedom.

didn't you know; they wear Robes to give people a good fkn.....

But why wait? How about bung checks next to metal detectors? Perhaps at toll booths on the way to work?

We could even install two way video links so you could spread em any time thats required..........

You just can't be too careful with bungs these days..........

Oh yeah game over. Bin laden has won.

"In 5-4 opinion, conservative justices decide that security needs trump privacy
rights."

This will be endlessly abused. If you don't think so you are a hopeless fool. We are no longer a free country but rather a country under the oppression of lawyers and politicians.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

"This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of
well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God
has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that
tyranny begins." Benjamin Franklin

Land of the Free, and Home of the Brave.

What a joke.

.

Those willing to give up a little freedom to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

-Benjamin Franklin

hey airdog-

you better bone up on your history pal. the current democratic party (the group that calls themselves democrats today) are the ones who freed the slaves. they used to be call republicans. the parties swapped positions years ago. go get an edjumacation.

Kennedy is a Supreme Court Justice. Gwaddamndest logic I've ever heard. The people of the US must be the most frightened souls now living on the face of the Earth.

Rhonda...you need a history lesson...

The entire state of Indiana was once (and to some degree, still is) run by REPUBLICAN Klansmen...but you would never mention that now, would you? OK...I will! Everyone, please read:

http://www.iub.edu/~imaghist/for_teachers/mdrnprd/lstmp/Klan.html

Also, ever hear of Richard Butler? You know the Klan guy who formed Aryan Nations which become a cornerstone of the "patriot movement". Let me ask you this: Is the "patriot movement" made up of democrats? What? I can't hear you! Hmmm...come back when you want to enlighten us some more.

jack 201...: the largest trial lawyer association , American Association of Justice, CAME OUT OPPOSING , strip searches for minor offenses, American Bar Association, said it is a over reach, Lawyers were not behind this expansion, only politicians ,afraid of the growing public hostility .

Raddave said:

Trust Verify, your conspiracy theories are troubling and I think you need to be helped with your paranoia. Neither the NDAA or the NDRA are new legislation. The amendment in the NDAA was an extension of one in the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq Act, which was set to expire.

The legislation isn't new but certain provisions are. Here's the relevant portion of the NDAA:

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Now while this may look on the surface like it doesn't apply to US Citizens, pay close attention to the wording. It says 'the requirement to detain doesn't extend to US citizens', but it says nothing about the military or government choosing to do so. There is no requirement, it basically leaves it up to an as-yet-undetermined agency to choose whether they want to do so or not. It's called ' broad discretionary power'.

And now here comes HR3166, or the Enemy Expatriation Act. Basically what his says is that any USC, whether native born or naturalized, can have citizenship stripped or revoked if:

1. They have obtained naturalization in a foreign state after turning 18
2. They have taken oath/declaration of allegiance in a foreign state after turning 18
3. They have entered/are entering/serving in armed forces of foreign state
4. Entering/serving in armed forces of another state if engaged in hostilities toward the US
5. Entering/serving/performing duties under the government of a foreign state after age 18 if person acquired nationality in that state
6. Entering/serving/performing duties under the government of a foreign state after age 18 if person acquired nationality in that state and an oath/declaration is required for such activity
7. Making a formal spoken/written renunciation of us citizenship before a US government entity;
8. Committing an act of treason against the US government
9. Acting to overthrow the government of the US
10. Bearing arms against the government of the US
11. Inciting/assisting/set in action/supports rebellion against the Government of the US
12. Willfully advocating the overthrow of the US Government
13. Create/Print/Disseminate literature advocating the overthrow of the US Government
14. Organizing/starting/becoming a member of any organization that advocates overthrow of the US Government
15. Any conspiracy between 2 or more persons to overthrow the government of the US, to hinder execution of US law, or seize/take/possess US Government property.

So what this means is that if the EEA passes, the provision about 'discretionary' detention of American citizens suspected of terrorism is irrelevant--they can take your citizenship and make detention mandatory.

If it becomes used outside of lawful arrests, then it will be a huge problem, until then, however, it is just another reason to not be arrested. Millions manage to NEVER be arrested in their lives, it should not be that hard to do the right thing and keep a clean record. Usually for those arrested, being stripped searched is the least of their worries.

@myspellcheckerisbroken....

If you and your Republican friends are against this but are still voting Republican, what can be said? It's like Stockholm syndrome. You are enabling the very thing that you are against. It makes no sense. This is what I mean when I shout "America, when will you wake up"? That's my question now to you personally....when will YOU wake up?

DaveK-1110204

Did you even read the story. He was arrested because a government clerical error. He did nothing wrong. He was an innocent man, proved innocent, and then the government justifies strip searching and innocent man.

A) The supreme court only ruled that it is not unconstitutional to get strip searched after committing a crime of any nature. They are HARDLY mandating it.

The SCOTUS never uses the word, "mandate." A supreme Court ruling, however, becomes the law of the land. And especially in this case where there was NO crime:

Even if the warrant had been valid, failure to pay a fine is not a crime in New Jersey.

The SCOTUS sets PRECEDENCE, and therefore, LAW.

This is a sorry day for the USA.

DaveK -

Your comments are seriously dangerous.

You say, "if you don't want to be strip searched, DON'T BREAK THE LAW!"

Not so long ago, Jewish people were killed, not just stripped search, and THEY DID NOT BREAK THE LAW.

Currently, all over the world, governments kill or torture their own citizens and THEY DID NOT BREAK THE LAW.

We are America. We do not give our government the right to abuse its citizens.

If Americans aren't outraged at this, I don't know what we have become or where we go from here.

@Do Not Mess With Texas...

That's because there was on "10th Amendment" justification. You really have been drinking the Koolaid if you believe that the so-called conservatives are against "big government". True they may want a smaller sized government, but they want a a government that is much more powerful and caters to the interests of the rich, while marginalizing the rest of us. We are witnessing the "serfdom of America". If you live long enough to see it play out, I doubt seriously if you will like the end result. My suggestion...Texas should secede now...that way you can build your own fascist utopia and not accept the federal version.

wowican'tbelievehowmisinformedsomepeopleare

Did Al Gore Sr. switch parties? NO

Did Robert Byrd switch parties? NO

Did Everett McKinley Dirksen change parties? Maybe you don't remember him? He was a Senator from Illinois. To quote the New York Times, "More than any other single individual, he was responsible for getting the civil rights bill through the Senate". He did not change parties. He passed away in 1969.

wowican'tbelievehowtheleftchangeshistory

Boy O Boy, the court just made the day for a lot of cops, esp. when stopping those dangerous blonds on some lonely country road for being blond...Oppss, I forgot, they don't have to be dangerous now.

Time.

Bush signed the Patriot act in 2001. I don't know what you mean by enhanced. The NDAA is a continuation of the AUMF also signed in 2001. I suppose you are concerned with the affirmation of the AUMF on detention. Obama signed the NDAA also with concerns over the detention language. Obama threatened to veto the entire bill over this issue but conceded and wrote a "signing statement" saying that his administration would never use this part of the NDAA.

You are the one who should WAKE UP. The Republicans are the ones who gin up fear and then pass laws and Executive orders to take away our freedoms under the auspice of safety.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/ndaa.asp

Wet Willy,

Only the ideologues would attempt to place the blame for this strip search nonsense on republicans. Who would they blame for the abusive TSA groping policies?

The TSA was created/established by GWB & a fearful Congress on Nov 19, 2001.

"Who would they[sic] blame?" Uhh, I guess dubya!

wow, so now the cops can strip you down on a whim? awesome, better not give that officer attitude when you get pulled over for speeding, you might get punished...sexually that is.

Both examples cited are improperly construed to advance and support blatant Prejudicial Blanket Discrimination and Annihilation, into non-existence-as-required-"Individual"-preponderance, the Individual's 4th Amendment Protections; and as such, the supportive of what is UNconstitutionally unjust language of Justice Kennedy, writing for the Majority, cannot be allowed to remain in and as part of the Supreme Court or its record. Most especially as any kind of "legitimately based" precedent that provides for an overreaching "Blanket" remedial reading to an "Individualized" question. I think it was Justice Kennedy, himself, last week that wrongly and absurdly stated that the presumption of Constitutionality of the Law is where the Justices are required to begin from; and this ruling only supports that wrongful notion of taking what is clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL and making it "said to be" Constitutional whether it is or not, to fulfill a wrongful ideological "presumption", to the detriment of The People and their GUARANTEED Constitutional Protections.....a.k.a........"just exactly what these Justices have done here after and by a rendering of an ILLEGAL strip search, itself, in this Ruling. 5 wrongly and unsubstantively supported votes for resultant UNconstitutionality against 4 votes "for" Constitutionality DOES NOT leave The Supreme Court with a CONSTITUTIONAL Ruling and only serves to inflict BLANKET irrepable harm-to-be-suffered onto the entire Nation, by being the wrongful BLANKET precedent to "Individuality" that this Majority has established it to be.

If Peter Piper THOUGHT he had an endless peck of Pickled Peppers, then How many Pickled Peppers would Peter Piper THINK he could Pick? How many "literal" strikes and UNCONSTITUTIONAL Ideological blows against The People, that turn tangible to suffer, does a Supreme Court Justice/s get before they are removed, ousted, IMPEACHED???

It really is time to start doing more than asking and start looking for REAL solutions.

HOPEFULLY these Judge's will get a DUI or busted for some traffic violation and go to jail and have to take the big high hard one for the team. This will be nothing but abuse and humility for the cops to use.

Thug nation

Dave K said:

Seriously people, why is it you value your personal privacy over common sense so often? I have an idea for you - if you don't want to be strip searched, DON'T BREAK THE LAW! Pay your fines, don't speed or drive without a seatbelt, and don't steal or cheat on your taxes or whatever. Don't buy or sell drugs, give alcohol to minors, hit your wife, or trespass on someone else's property. FFS, why do liberals want to be able to break the law so damn much?? Sorry, the freedom our bill of rights gives us is NOT the freedom to do whatever the heck we want with no repercussions. If you really don't like a law, then either do something about it or move the heck out.

Thing is you can be strip searched WITHOUT having broken any laws. The guy in the article was subjected to this due to a system error.

I was adopted legally by my parents, a Vietnam war vet and his wife from an international orphanage for stateless children (children with no documentation showing where they were born or who they were born to. They filed copies of the application for adoption copies and receipts for the $10k, and once they got the adoption finalized, they had a birth certificate issued with them as my parents (you have to have a legal adoption in order to get that so a legal BC is proof an adoption took place.)

18 yrs after the adoption USCIS is doing a routine record search and they find they lost the copy of my adoption paper. They still have my BC with my parents' names on it, they have copies of the application and receipts for the money paid, they are just missing the official adoption decree. They come to me to get a copy.

I, having never been told I was adopted, responded to the 'Papers, please' demand with 'what papers?' at which time I was declared 'illegal' because your BC, DL, and SS card are not proof of citizenship. I learned I was adopted and undocumented at the same time they were having me bend over for a body cavity search. They 'detained' me--not 'arrest' since I had never done anything wrong nor broken any laws.

And for those of you who don't know--once you're declared 'illegal' you don't even have the right to ask that someone of the same gender perform the body cavity search. I got a male guard who laughed after he was done and saw I was crying. It wasn't that bad in prison--ICE detainees are housed in prisons until space opens up in a deportation camp,and in prison you have the same rights that every prisoner has.

It wasn't until I got to the for-profit deportation camp in Raymondville, TX--the one that Human Rights Watch people called 'Ritmo' because they said it felt exactly like the Guantanamo Bay detention facilities--that it got really bad. Strip searches and body cavity searches happened on a regular basis, completely at random--a guard could tell one or all of us to strip and bend and perform a cavity search while others watched. Certain guards had their favorites, too-especially in my '18-25 single female' section of camp. We heard racial slurs all the time comparing 18 year old 'gook c**t' (Asian female private parts) with 'ni**er c**t' (African female private parts).

Since I was stateless prior to my adoption, there was nowhere they could deport me so I was told I would either remain in detention the rest of my life or I could produce the adoption paper. I spent two years in the private deportation camp writing to every courthouse in three states trying to figure out where the adoption paper was--thankfully I found it and they let me go.

If you count being 'legal' as having come here legally and having a legal birth certificate with US citizens as your parents, an SS card and a legal DL, I was always a citizen and I was never illegal. I was undocumented--missing a piece of paper. So what happened to me was a violation of every right I have as a citizen and as a human being.

I don't know why they had to waste taxpayer money to make this ruling--they've always had the right to strip search and cavity search you when they detain or arrest you. The majority of citizens just don't know it.

@myspellcheckerisbroken, I agree with Caligula. You and your republican friends are appalled by this and would be willing to fight and die for freedom but you are unwilling to vote for President Obama? Caligula nailed it when he/she said you suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. You also can't see the forrest through the trees (same as all braindead narrow minded republicans). None of you are bright enough to know that you are voting against your own interests.

This is a stupid law, just like ALL laws voted in by republicans these days. I hope someone is strip searching these justice's grandchildren as we speak. Maybe then they will figure it out.

Rush Limbaugh and the RWNJ want to watch!!! X-ray scanners at airports just don't do it for them.

john - I'm not scared. They can take that and shove it. :) Actually I'm not advocating overthrowing the government. I'm advocating the people coming together for a change, putting aside their differences and demanding that DC cleans up and starts addressing some of the most serious issues we have. Now if we do and they don't then hey it may have to go there at some point, hopefully not, because I'm almost as afraid of that outcome as where we are going right now but we have seen it many times throughout history so who knows?

25 - yup some of those different rules I was talking about.

Trust/Realist - I know amazing huh? Even after my post above and as I type this I know there are going to be even more posts (here and below and certainly across the web) saying it was the republicans fault or the democrat's fault. Instead of the who gives a $hit both sides are corrupt posts urging people to come together and stop being duped and drinking the party specific kool aid. That's my main argument. I'm tired of both sides and I want the BS to stop and I just want them to finally start doing their jobs - a politician that will actually grow a pair and do what is right for a change. I will likley be wanting for a long time, I know, but still there's a slim bit of hope. You are very right Realist, it will be hard to get people to come together and they know that but not impossible, and they know that too. Like you said, that's why these changes are slow and subtle. To fast and it blows up in your face, slow and easy and it will go mostly un-noticed and the refusals that are met are much more easily dealt with or ignored, up until it is too late and then they can do what ever they want. I do think if we can't get people to stop listening too and worrying about the trivial BS and or certain social issues, that while they are important (media stop being sheep and you could do your part here too), are not the number concern at the moment, and get those people to pay attention we will find that most of us can agree and would be happy to finally see these problems addressed in the manner they should be and can stand together like is needed for a change. It will be hard but I believe we can do it, if we really want it.

Some day maybe but for now I will keep up the same tone and that is stop the division and open your eyes American, R or D - doesn't really make a difference - the train is going to the same destination regardless of what route we are taking at the moment if nothing really changes.

pigs get more rights and now the right to sexual harrass ppl. america is slowly turning into the most far right winged country in the entire world. it will so pass iran, china and all. supreme court is filled with nazis. no1 polices our goverment who act like dictators. now cops can see pretty girls naked and gay cops can sexually harrass us. and most the time murder is even legal. seriously this is ridiculous.

Let's be forthright and truthful with each other, the sloth and indolence of the American people has allowed this to come to pass. When more people care out the outcome of American Idol or The Apprentice or Survivor than what goes on under their own noses in the name of "justice", this is the predictable result.

For those who say, "Don't commit crimes."; the gentleman in question had not committed a crime. For those who say, "Move if you don't like it."; this is the law through out the U.S. You can't be suggesting emigration, can you?

Time to initiate the F.D.R. plan, four more justices on the Supreme Court.

It may come about that a circumstance with a well-off citizen could occur, which would then appeal this new ruling.

However, in the meantime, those who are most likely to change governmental rulings, like the wealthy, are the least to care about rulings like this. Many times, they can buy or connect their ways out of things. Yet the well-off are the most important when changing things these days.

I am sick to death, saddened, and continually frustrated by the politics of who is at fault. Look at the Congressional voting records. It was not only the Democrats. It was not only the Republicans. IT WAS ALL OF THEM! Congresses, Presidents, and now the Supreme Court, ALL. They did not remove rights only for those that are Democrats. They did not remove rights only for Republicans. They removed rights guaranteed by the Constitution for ALL Americans. You can lay blame all you want, but it won't change that fact.

At some point we as a nation are going to have to make a choice, whether we are Democrats and Republicans, or whether we are ALL Americans.

The Airdog

@Una Dagger - LOL! Read history much?

Which party freed the slaves in the US?

TYPICAL GOP SPIN

Go back and REREAD history, and IF you have any understanding AT ALL of WHO the parties are and WHAT THEY STAND FOR, NOW NOT THEN, you will know "WHO" freed the slaves...

HINT: ROLL REVERSAL

Everyone needs to calm down.

All the supreme court said was that the law mandating stripsearches was not unconstitutional. All that means is that if you are outraged by this you will have to actually CALL YOUR LEGISLATOR and let them know that you will not tolerate this. How do you let them know you will not tolerate it? BY VOTING FOR SOMEONE ELSE IF THEY DO NOT DO WHAT YOU WANT.

Look - There's a lot of stuff that governments, local, state, federal... so that we don't like that are constitutional. If you don't like a law, work to change it. Example, it is not unconstitutional to ban Marijuana as an illegal drug. However there is a HUGE movement to legalize it, at least for medicinal purposes. Don't ask don't tell was also not "unconstitutional" but the people worked with the legislature and executive branches and had it overturned. Gay marriage is another one... Stop acting like the SCOTUS is the end all be all, it's not. It's just one check on the balance of power in the US. If you want change in the laws, DEMAND it from the LAWMAKERS.

"You DO have a right to health care, you get it through a job, or buy it yourself. I'm not buying it for you. I already pay a huge chunk of my income for all sorts of government spending, including welfare for the people who breed offspring they can't feed. I don't owe you anything"

It's just incredible what dull people are willing to believe. Obamacare is designed to decrease the amounts YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING for "those people." This has absolutely nothing to do with buying health care for others. It's a way to control health care costs by decentivizing uninsured people from running to the ER where the Dr's hippocratic oath requires him/her to treat them. Come on conservatives. It's amazing that when a democrat comes up with a progressive solution to lowering the cost on the public to a community problem, the conservatives oppose it because it also "helps the disadvantaged." Once the conservatives get of their high horse and start caring about the disadvantaged maybe we can finally agree to help our fellow neighbor in a way that lowers the costs for all of us.

Also, your understanding of the term "right" is confused.

As for those posters who are attempting to separate this USSC opinion from its conservative roots: The conservative block on the USSC has been limiting the liberty rights of criminal defendants for decades. It's a recognized USSC trend and it is big government. It's just incredible what conservatives are willing to tell themselves.

I agree with you John-737278. There is no provision specifying political afilliation. This is affecting all Americans, so when the "My party is better than yours" crowd chime in, I think it would be better if they would just look at the bigger picture.

Rob_Father,

I think Supreme Court Justices that vote in favor should be stripped searched before they put on the black robe next time.

By that same logic, every SCOTUS Justice who votes for upholding any treatment or punishment should be subjected to that treatment or punishment.

So, if a Justice holds that a man who stalked, raped, tortured, and murdered a woman and received a ten year sentence did not suffer a violation of the Eighth Amendment (which bars cruel and unusual punishment), that Justice would immediately be put in prison for ten years.

It's going to be pretty hard to keep the SCOTUS stocked with Justices with those rules in place.

This SCOTUS decision is hard to believe! For minor offenses? Good grief!

the whole US spying on its own people is old... there are home born terrorist; open a history book or just watch the news. if you have nothing to hide who cares? do you really think we will be like "omg, that guy just said he stole a candy bar from the 7-11, lets raid his place"??? last i checked america has been a more safe place to live since we tightened down after 9/11.

the person that wanted to talk about bush for some unknown reason and about the WMD's; please learn what a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION is... it does NOT only refer to nukes but also chemical and biological weapons; which iraq did have for decades and used it on their own people multiple times. there were clear signs they were also attempting to make a nuke. i much rather take a country out before they have a nuke then afterwards. consider this your warning Iran.. us and Israel will not sit back and allow you on your path :).

now back to the subject at hand... strip searching all incoming criminal's have been going on for decades. its nothing new... this was an attempt to get rid of it. if you did then there no question there would be people smuggling weapons or drugs into the jails. this already happens daily.

So let me see: If a COMPUTER ERROR, from a rather inefficient beuracracy (fancy that, like no one ever saw inefficency and clerical errors in a beuracracy before /lol ), which elleges a misdemenor (not felony offence) is sufficent for someone to be stripped down naked; imagine what could be the offence if one of these self same justices got incorrectly classified as deceased, while trying to vote. But then again, dead people trying to vote isn't exactly legal; else we could end up with more then a few cadabers putting one political party or the other in the lead....

Now just imagine if some wise guy sheriff, in a small town, out in the backwoods, should insist that one of these justices disrobe in front of them; for trying to vote, using the name of an alleged dead guy. And according to their own ruling, this would be OK; with the best they could hope for is an appology, when the municipality finds out the computer was in error, and the person wasn't really dead.

Well you Rethuligans can finally be Happy. Every Citizen Now will be subjected to anal probes and Vaginal probes for jaywalking. You neo cons make me want to vomit, always talking about the Constitution and Govt interference and your Conservative Justices just jammed us in the REAR

me28, want to volunteer yourself for showing your package, when a computer erroniously suggests you have unpaid parking tickets? I'm sure Anonymous could quite gladly hack into their database, and slip your name in there, if you volunteered your real life ID for the entire Internet to see... A mean, after all "nothing to hide and all"; who would care if having your junk recorded on a camera to be shown before an open court (televised anyone?) should come up... But if it's on the rather small size; then every lady who might post to these forums would reserve the right to laugh :d

Then again, if we, as a society should chose to have certain laws wrt pr0n and smut, and hold up certain standards wrt indecent exposure; perhaps we wouldn't want, just everything to be all that visable. And on a like token; I'd rather not see some guy doing his duty on the toilet either; it'd be rather, umm, nasty.... Though I'm sure that many who don't care about such things; could imagine all the things a potential threat to the public, could plan in the privacy of the common restroom stall... :o

How do we, the people, change the way things have gone and are going?

We need a plan.

While I think the court's ruling -- and the "logic" behind it -- is silly-bordering-on-moronic, I don't necessarily believe it will lead to an appreciable increase in strip searches of people arrested on minor offenses. Specifically, such searches take time and resources, neither of which are in abundant supply in most jails/prisons.

In the Atlanta metro area, for instance, it can take up to 8 hours from the time someone arrives at jail until he or she is actually booked into the system, and that's without a strip search. Once bail is posted, it can take another 4-8 hours just to process someone out of jail. Basically, if you're arrested in Atlanta you can figure on spending at least 12-16 hours in the county lock up.

If they added mandatory strip-searches, that time could easily double or even triple given the volume of arrests and the already over-crowded conditions. All that time that an accused person spends in jail has a significant cost . . . and while security may outweigh privacy, according to the court, money trumps all when it comes to practical application.

However, the truth is that the democrats of the 50's are the republicans of today and today's democrats are the radical leftists of the 50's.

Actually Wet Willie, the Republicans of the '50's are the Democrats of today, and the Democrats of the 50's are missing in action.

Up Uranus 1.32

To answer your question, the lesser of the evils currently plaguing us.

VTKaren 1.80

Oh come on Karen, who turned this organization into the abomination is currently is?

Would you blame the currently screwed up postal service on Ben Franklin simply because he started it?

So basically what the SC said is you or I by mistake took a CUP OF ICE from the soda fountain we need to and should be strip searched.

StateAtty wrote, "You DO have a right to health care, you get it through a job, or buy it yourself. I'm not buying it for you. I already pay a huge chunk of my income for all sorts of government spending, including welfare for the people who breed offspring they can't feed. I don't owe you anything." I can tell from the rest of your post that it seems you don't subscribe to the language I've highlighted. The language you've quoted is typical rubbish, a Republican/Tea Party lie that has been used to gin up anger against minorities and government itself in their quest to make the United States a third world nation:

"Who's using government benefits: Mostly, the elderly

"Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

"By Allison Linn

"The recession and drawn out recovery has prompted a lot of discussion about whether entitlement programs ranging from unemployment insurance to food stamps help people in need or keep people from helping themselves.

"A recent analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which advocates for low-income families, offers some insight into that issue by showing who exactly is using these government benefits.

"The answer: Mostly the 65-plus crowd, but also disabled people and working Americans.

"Using the 2010 federal budget and U.S. Census data , the CBPP finds that 53 percent of all government entitlements are going to people who are over 65 years old.

"Another 20 percent of the benefits went to disabled people, while 18 percent were going to people in a working household. The data was for the government’s 2010 fiscal year.

"That means that 9 percent of entitlements went to people who were not elderly, disabled or living in a household in which someone had worked at least 1,000 hours in a year.

"The analysis included Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, SNAP (otherwise known as food stamps), Social Security Insurance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the school lunch program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the refundable component of the Child Tax Credit.

"Taken together, that accounts for $1.8 trillion of the approximately $2.1 trillion in benefit costs the government paid out in the 2010 fiscal year, according to the researchers. The report said most of the remaining money went to federal and veteran retirement benefits, which it excluded from its calculation.

"In addition, the report included about $130 billion in state funding for benefits such as Medicaid.

"The main analysis did not include programs for which Congress must set funding levels each year, including low-income housing and energy assistance programs and WIC, which provides nutrition to low-income moms and young children. However, the authors said when they did the analysis with those benefits it didn't change the calculations substantially.

"Of course, it makes sense that older Americans are getting a large chunk of benefits because that’s who Medicare and Social Security are aimed at.

"Most of the 9 percent of payouts going to people who were not working, elderly or disabled were unemployment benefits, medical care payments, Social Security survivor benefits and payouts for people who opted to take Social Security between ages 62 to 64.

"The report noted that there are likely others who would like to be getting government benefits but aren’t because there’s a limit to how much is given out for certain benefit programs."

http://lifeinc.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/23/10814860-whos-using-government-benefits-mostly-the-elderly?threadId=3376968&commentId=63737998#c63737998

91% of entitlement benefits went to the elderly, disabled, or the working poor, not to lazy, shiftless parasites who refuse to work as argued by rightist ideologues. When will the sheeple on the right wake up from their dogmatic slumbers and actually seek the truth?

"Una Dagger - The civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed with democrats. Remember KKK Byrd and Al Gore Sr.?"

And today it would not pass because of the republicans since all those right wing racists left the democratic party and joined the republican party. You bit on that evil email on this and should have your head examined for even posting that nonsense.

Open season on young women around the country,

look for many more false charges.

One must wonder if the de-lousing is standard procedure or if there was a reason this guy this guy needed a double treatment....we don't know the whole story.

Reguardless, just another example of our rights going out the window.

"justices" what a joke and a sad one at that!

Thanks again SCOTUS (specifically Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy and Alito) for selling out the american people AND the Bill of Rights. First it was "electing" our president in 2000, GPS tracking devices are a form of a "search", CITIZENS UNITED (best govt money can buy), the right to remain silent now MUST be stated before it is assumed, etc.

Way to interpret the Constitution to fit the needs of CORPORATE America as opposed to the American people. You are a pox upon this country.

The NDAA..... Obama issued a "signing statement" saying he wouldn't enforce certain provisions.

Anybody who buys that, I've got a bridge I want to sell you.

Anybody who thinks The President can change a law passed by Congress and signed by The President...

Well anyone who believes that is as ignorant of The Constitution as Obama seems to be.

The signing statement was a sideshow for the ignorant masses. It holds NO WEIGHT WHATSOEVER!

If you fell for that, you're a complete fool.

And if you think Obama threatened to veto it becuase it was unconstitutional,

Then you are an even bigger fool. Too bad people like that vote.

Obama threatened to veto it because it didn't give him TOTAL power, not for any other reason.

Here, maybe Jon Stewart can talk some sense into you, unless he's too right wing for you, lols.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-7-2011/arrested-development---one-way-train-to-gitmo

Wet Willy

Oh come on Karen, who turned this organization into the abomination is currently is?
Would you blame the currently screwed up postal service on Ben Franklin simply because he started it?

NO! And I will continue...

Oh come on Karen, who turned this organization into the abomination is currently is?
Would you blame the currently screwed up postal service on Ben Franklin simply because he started it?

This is the "heart" of liberal v, conservative: That which was a "positive" for the USA can now be, out-of-hand, dismissed? Whatever... you go, GOP! <sarcasm>

Benjamin Franklin (as did ALL the founding fathers) had a SOCIALIST idea in mind. NO MORE MONARCHY! The PEOPLE will run the STATE! There is NO way for so-called "Capitalists" to deny this.

The Post Office is a SOCIALIST institution. C'mon, GOP -- prove otherwise!

Today it seems the GOP thinks the poor are the only ones to pay for roads, schools, libraries, water, electricity, etc.

And the rich? They just reap the SOCIALIST benefits the 99% pay for.

When is enough enough let them play with each other if they like doing it that much maybe after worrk they can all hang out and practice sickos

Karen

First of all, I am Independent. But there are things you should take into consideration. One, is that anyone under 133% of the poverty line will not pay a dime for healthcare, in fact they will get full coverage under Medicaid. Including any drugs the doctors and drug companies see fit. this will be paid for by everyone else.

This is even a more interesting note. A family of 5 with an income of around $26,000 would qualify for free Medicaid. $26,500*1.33=$35,245. 35% of all households in America make $35,000 or less. You could probably do the math, but feasibly 35% of the population could end up on Medicaid or more. And if you don't qualify, have a puppy. If you still don't, have two. If you still don't, drop your income by a couple of grand. It is a welfare state.

Your premise that the 99% will pay for everything simply is not true. Actually, if the top 1% and the bottom 35% pay for nothing, the burden is on the 64% of the population in the middle. And if you consider that at least 10% work for the government, that puts the number of GDP producing workers that have to pay for everything around 50-55%. You can claim the 99% all day long, but the numbers don't lie.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11fedreg.shtml

http://www.mybudget360.com/plundering-the-middle-class-35-percent-of-american-households-live-on-35000-or-less/

john-737278,

waiting over three minutes to "post"....

now four minutes.................

WOW!

just got an advert for car insurance!

Will I be "collapsed"? Oh, corporate "thing"!

Way to go, MSNBC!

It has really been glitchy lately, maybe they are being hacked.

"...if you don't want to be strip searched, DON'T BREAK THE LAW! Pay your fines, don't speed or drive without a seatbelt, and don't steal or cheat on your taxes or whatever."

But, but, but... he didn't do anything wrong. You'll view it differently when your granny gets dragged in by mistake.

cheetah-822547

Well there is a visual I didn't need.

Alil...... does that mean that Bush 750+ signing statements are also unconstitutional????

Those of you who are braying about entitlements, be aware that neither SS nor Medicare contributed ONE DIME to the deficits or debt. They have been fully funded by the FICA tax! That will continue for some time tho fixes DO need to be applied. The question that reasonable people have is: since the poor,sick and elderly had NOTHING to do with creating this debt crisis, WHY should THEY have to pay the consequences for regaining control of of the debt?? IN addition, the record indicated that the GOP deliberately created this debt crisis, using tax cuts and over spending, so they could try and convince us that privatizing SS and Medicare was the ONLY solution. Republicans ( and Grover Norquist) called the plan "starve the beast" and they finally got Raygun/bush/bush to buy into it! So, the debt went from less than $1T in 1981 to $11.9T by the end of bush's last budget (FY 2009) and the GOP saddled Pres. Obama with a $1.3T deficit even before he was sworn in! And you wonder why there are trillion dollar deficits for the last few years???

More than anything else, it is this issue that will lead to the repudiation of the GOP at the polls in Nov. It may well be worse than 2008 and result in a GOP-proof Congress! I'll keep my fingers crossed!

Tom in NH-294381

They are all at fault. Dumbs and Pugs. You should know though that the only time in the last thirty years that debt growth leveled off was during Clinton with a GOP controlled Congress. Congress spends the money, the President doesn't. I think most of the time the President feels impotent, that is why they flex their muscles overseas and have wars, so they can feel they did something.

This country is BANKRUPT is so many ways. And we, its citizens have let this happen. When this kind of decision can be handed down from the SCOTUS, a flat-out assault on the civil rights of the citizens, we are no better than China, Burma and any and all other nations who treat their citizens as chattel. I guess the SCOTUS doesn't realize that cops aren't exactly the sanest group of peoople. When one is suspicious of everyone and everything, as cops are, how could this thing not go wrong and go wrong quickly. Can we please WAKE UP and change this war on our rights!!!!!! Things like this decision and so many other things can only be accomplished with our silence and inaction. The older I get, the more I dislike this country. I really feel that I will leave it one day. Sad to say, I'll be better of leaving. I feel sorry for the kids and young adults who wil lonly see more of their civil liberties taken. America love it leave it..........leaving sounds mighty fine to me right about now.

Sandie-644591

Maybe, if you compare the two and how they go about their business, America's foreign policy is really not much different than the domestic policy. And just as our foreign policy has caused "blowback", the more our supposed representative government pushes it's agenda in the same way, there is sure to be domestic "blowback". And just like they underestimated the anger they have seen from our foreign policy, they have seen nothing compared to when they anger their own.

Look at this thread. Very few defending the actions of the state. Perhaps the state should start basing policy on social media, rather than defending against it and acting in spite of it.

When life deals you lemons, make lemonade! I'm gonna make a fortune selling vaseline in ketchup packets. I'm gonna be so friggin' rich I'll never have to worry about getting a finger up MY ass!

Timothy McVeigh will go down in history as a hero.

Nope just checked April 1st was two days ago.

We are fu cked people

They'll never take me alive

I'd say more but that would allow them to lock me away indefinately without a trial.Forever.

Bastards.

See what I did there, first it made me laugh. Then it pissed me off.

John-737278,

I hear you loud and clear but IMO, the time for action is upon us and I see very little action taking place. Hopefully people wil come to truly understand that all we need to do is come together for our own best interests. I don't care if one is white, black, asian, native american, latino or plaid. A democrat, republican, independent, green party, tea party or whig. All of the above are just labels. Labels, by the very definition of the word, are designed to separate. Before I am any of those things, I am first a person. Your post mentions both the foreign and domestic policies of these United States and I agree with what you posted. For me though, it seems the main policy is to keep the majority splintered and divided while the few at the top continue to "strip search" us.

I used to think it was funny when a cop came at me waving a breathalyzer to bend over and spread my cheeks and say "okay go ahead" and when he asked what the hell I was doing, I'd look perplexed and say "whaddya mean that's how the last cop did it?"

I'm never gonna do that again.

"And The Beat Goes On ......"

We are getting exactly what we deserve!!! We did not revolt when these same Supreme Idiots installed bushcheney. America was in a race to the bottom ever since. If they collect data on this new law, 90 percent of the people stripped searched will be PEOPLE OF COLOR!!

Hey now I happen to believe getting stripped search is not the worst thing in the world. For all you out there that scream he was innocent, that is not the point of jail to decide. The point of jail is to house defendants, many of which were brought in on violent crimes. These same people would be crying a river if one of these guys shives are buddy Al. So I guess no one knows any guards. If a guard is stab because a search isn't done, what is, it oh well? Al wouldn't want to sue if he ended up in some cell with a derelict that gave him lice?

This is simply about keeping every one safe. Inmates as well as guards.

Oh and yeah I went to jail once. I think I had a few more rights there than when I was in the Navy.

I also don't like the Patriot Act and think the healthcare law is unconstitutional.

Not against healthcare reform just the way they did it by making us buy a private parties product.

Caligula-1763025:

You need a history lesson. The Democratic Party is the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. Here are some notable examples from history:

Democrats formed the Confederacy, seceded from the Union, and fought a Civil War where over 600,000 citizens were killed, including many thousands of blacks – in order to keep blacks in slavery because the Democrats built their economic base on the backs of black slaves. Democrats also enacted Fugitive Slave laws to keep blacks from escaping from plantations and instigated the 1856 Dred Scott decision which legally classified blacks as property. Democrats also pushed to pass the Missouri Compromise to spread slavery into 50% of the new states. As if that wasn’t enough, Democrats then pushed to achieve passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act that was designed to spread slavery into ALL of the new states.

After the Civil War, Republicans amended the US Constitution to give blacks freedom (13^th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment), and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860's, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, a system that was fair to blacks.

However, Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan in 1866 to lynch and terrorize Republicans - black and white - and drive Republicans out of the South. In his book "A Short History of Reconstruction,” renowned historian, Dr. Eric Foner, revealed that the Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 by Democrats as a Tennessee social club. The Ku Klux Klan became a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party and all those who wanted the restoration of white supremacy.

The Hayes-Tilden Compromise of 1877 was an attempt by Republicans to get the Democrats to stop lynching people and to respect the rights of blacks. Democrats eventually reacted by formulating the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. (In short, Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every piece of civil rights legislation from the 1860’s to the 1960's)

After Democrats took control of Congress in 1892, they passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil rights legislation passed by the Republicans, including the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875. It took Republicans nearly six decades to finally achieve passage of civil rights legislation in the 1950’s and 1960’s. In fact, the racist Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.

Republicans started the NAACP in 1909 on Abraham Lincoln’s 100th birthday to counter the racist practices of the Democrats. The first black American to head the NAACP was Republican, James Weldon Johnson, who wrote the lyrics to “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” the inspirational song that is considered to be the Black National Anthem.

More recently, Democrat Public Safety Commissioner, Eugene "Bull" Connor, in Birmingham, Alabama, let loose vicious dogs and turned powerful fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators; Democrat Georgia Governor, Lester Maddox, famously brandished ax handles to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant; In 1954, Democrat Arkansas Governor, Orville Faubus, tried to prevent desegregation of a Little Rock public school; and Democrat Alabama Governor, George Wallace, stood in front of an Alabama schoolhouse in 1963 and thundered, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

Then there’s Democrat Senator, Robert Byrd, a former "Grand Keagle" (I THINK that’s a recruiter) in the Ku Klux Klan, and a former prominent leader in the Democrat-controlled Congress, where he was honored by his fellow Democrats as the “conscience of the Senate.” (yeah, right!) He was a fierce opponent of desegregating the military and complained in one letter: “I would rather die a thousand times and see old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds.”

In contrast, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the famous1954 “Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education” decision that ended school segregation and the “separate but equal” doctrine.

But the Democrats persisted in their disdain for black activists. President Lyndon Johnson in 1967 expressed his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Vietnam War by referring to Dr. King as "that Ni**er preacher."

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tennessee, after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator, Robert Byrd, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968 (some coward!).

Democrats claim that they care about diversity, but readily demean black professionals who do not toe the Democratic Party’s liberal line, slandering blacks as “Uncle Toms”, “Sellouts” and “House Ni**ers”, including Dr. Condoleezza Rice, General Colin Powel, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Janice Rogers Brown and former Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele. With impunity, Democrat Senator, Ted Kennedy, called black judicial nominees “Neanderthals.” Democrat Senator, Harry Reid, slurred Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, as an incompetent Negro who could not write good English. In response to Reid’s degrading comment, the headline of the New York Daily News on December 7, 2004, read “Slap at Thomas Stinks of Racism.” Editorial Democratic Party operatives depicted former Maryland Lieutenant Governor, Michael Steele, on the Internet as a “Simple Sambo” with big, thick red lips and nappy hair. Cartoonist Jeff Danziger and Pat Oliphant portrayed Dr.Condoleezza Rice as a “stooge” and a bare foot, “Ignorant Mammy.”

Also, Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 40 to 50 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.

For partisan political gain, Democrats fan the flames of racism, as they have done for over 150 years. Facts about racism in the Democratic Party can be found in books such as “A Short History of Reconstruction” by Dr. Eric Foner and “Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past” by Bruce Bartlett. Two other books are “Unfounded Loyalty: An In-depth Look into The Love Affair Between Blacks and Democrats” and “Unveiling the Whole Truth” by Wayne Perryman. Perryman wrote his books after conducting a year-long research and sued the Democratic Party, demanding an apology for their 150-year history of racism based on the Democratic Party’s “States Rights” claims. The Democrats admitted their racist past under oath in court, but refused to apologize because they know that they can take the black vote for granted.

In recent history, Republican President, George W. Bush, appointed more blacks to high-level positions than any president in our nation’s history and spent record amounts of money on education, job training, and health care. Bush also spent $18.8 million for Historically Black Colleges, $24 billion for small business loans and grants, and $10 billion for Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance for the poor. Since 2001, access to free community health centers has been extended to 2.2 million poor people. In May 2003, Bush provided $15 billion (three times more money than President Bill Clinton) to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean.

And as far as I can determine, NONE OF THE FOLKS I NAMED IN THE ABOVE COMMENT CHANGED POLITICAL PARTIES from Democrat to Republican or vice versa, so the false claim that yesterday's Democrats are today's Republicans is nothing but baloney. That's just an overly broad generalization perpetuated by Democrats who are ashamed of their past. Democrats try in vain to shift blame away from their own party and project it onto their opponents. That seems to be in their DNA.

I do not embrace the type of socialist, secularist agenda that is promoted by the Democrat Party of today, which includes fostering dependency on welfare that breaks up families, supporting same-sex marriage, approving partial-birth abortion, and banning God from the public square. Yuk!

Shill in NH- "Alil...... does that mean that Bush 750+ signing statements are also unconstitutional????"

It must be terrible to have to defend The President when all you can say is "Bush did it too!"

You sound like a 5 year old. Listen to what your mother taught you, two wrongs don't make a right!

Anyways, that's not even what I said.

What I said is The President CANNOT change a law passed by congress and signed by himself with a "signing statement". And I said anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.

I'm SICK of you FAKE liberals.

Supporting a warmongering president. Supporting a man who signed the patriot act. Supporting a man who signed NDAA. Supporting a man who defunded SS. Supporting a man who had his AG Holder issue a legal opinion that The President deciding to asassinate you constitutes due process under law.

FAKES! All of you! You fake liberals make me sick.

Only fake liberals support warmongers.

You would have to be a republican or an idiot to want to defund SS.

Which one is Obama?

Hello Rhonda, who are you trying to convince? I'm a political atheist I don't care what political religion one wants to follow. But you pretty much have to be brain dead and blind to buy into the propaganda you are selling. Have you ever seen or been to any Republican function? If so, well over 90% of the people in the audience are white and that's at all Republican functions. I've seen many Republican functions that don't have a single minority in their audience. That's all you need to know about the ethnic bias. A picture paints a thousand words. Only a racist will buy into what you are selling. You aren't fooling anyone!

TrustVerify:

YOU WROTE: "Have you ever seen or been to any Republican function? If so, well over 90% of the people in the audience are white and that's at all Republican functions. I've seen many Republican functions that don't have a single minority in their audience. That's all you need to know about the ethnic bias."

MY RESPONSE: Really? You must be a typical Democrat (although you're afraid to admit it) who filters everything he sees through the prism of race, class, and gender, yet pretends to be supremely unbiased. So, using your logic, when I went to see a movie last night and noticed that nearly everyone in the ticket line was white (following your example of being RACE-CONSCIOUS), that means this theater and/or movie was ethnically biased? And when I later stopped at a grocery store to pick up a few items on my way home, the "Lilly White" crowd there indicated that Giant (and its entire chain of grocery stores) is ethnically biased? And when I ate breakfast at a local McDonald's this morning and noticed that ALMOST ALL the patrons were Hispanic, that means McDonald's is guilty of being ethnically biased (few white patrons)? Sheeeeeeeesh! And you call me "brain-dead?" (insert laugh track here).

By the way, I attended a recent Republican rally in Washington, D.C., in preparation for the D.C. primary elections, and probably more than half of the folks present were black, or at least non-white (I really didn't pay close attention to the exact break-down of race, class, or gender like Democrats do). Anyway, some folks who "look white" could actually be black, Hispanic, or whatever. And some who "look black" could be "half black" (like Obama) or whatever. I'd rather leave such silly break-down assessments to the seasoned experts - Democrats.

In addition, Democrats are the consummate experts at spewing propaganda, convincing black people that the Democrat Party is looking out for their interests. But all of the historical facts I listed (and which you couldn't deny or even challenge) indicate otherwise. Moreover, any prominent black person who strays from the Democrat plantation is villified and denigrated because they "Don't know their place." I listed several specific examples of that in my previous comment, too.

But hey, it's a free country. You can continue to ignore the wealth of historical facts regarding the horrendous treatment of blacks by the Democrat Party and continue to make excuses for the continuation of such behavior, but I saw the light a long time ago.

Consider the fiasco created by the Democrats in the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina, for example. To their eternal shame, Democrats and the media used the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina to perpetuate the falsehood that Republicans do not care about blacks. In fact, it was the Democrats in charge of Louisiana and New Orleans who failed to act to protect black citizens. Democrat officials refused to implement the emergency evacuation plan and did not pre-position emergency supplies and personnel in the Super Dome. Over 1,000 buses were allowed to become ruined by the flood, and the Red Cross was prevented from bringing in truck loads of food and supplies to the city.

The 1898 Posse Comitatus Act precludes a president from going into a state without an invitation from the governor, and the Louisiana Democrat Governor Kathleen Blanco withheld her consent until it was too late for effective federal help. Democrats also blocked President Bush’s 2001 energy bill which had $540 million slated for levee repairs.

Generations of Democrats had been running New Orleans and Louisiana, but they tried their best to shift the blame for the Hurricane Katrina fiasco on Republicans. But I guess that's just another historical fact you will ignore because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Rhonda is correct, the Republicans are the party of the people, if only Lincoln was around to set some of you straight!!

And if any of you don't think so then you missed the whole point of Herman Cain's candidacy. At least when he spoke peoples eyes didn't glaze over like with Obama.

Also, I cannot imagine what it must be like to be on the SCOTUS; one day deliberating strip searches in prison, the next Obama's healthcare plan.

Is there a common thread??

Rhonda...

A "joke" I heard at a Tea Party function that I infiltrated back in 2009: "Barrack Obama...just another ni##er in government housing."

Everyone laughed out loud without a hint of embaraasement or shame.

So, Rhonda, we all know where the racists live and who they are and no amount of spin that you and your ilk vomit up will ever make it different. Those who argue the loudest about not being racist are typically...wait for it now....racists! But, many tea/pugs have fully embraced their racism and wear it like a badge of honor. It's time that you get with the program.

Now go polish your jack-boots.

Please Calig .. . what about when I was over at your house and you were making the n###** jokes and messing around with your sister?? It is ridiculous of you to try to paint a whole party as racist. Only someone who is racist themselves or has an axe to grind would do that. I think both parties strive to be as inclusive as the human nature of their individual members allows them to be. But Rhonda is correct on her facts, and Abraham Lincoln would STILL be a Republican today.

You only have to take one look at Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and other leadership in the Democratic party to see what ethnicity rules there. The fact that they adopted Obama to push through the agendas that they have had for 20 years is simply shrewd. I would have done it myself.

Caligula:

It's pretty apparent that you have nothing of substance to contribute to this discussion. And you are unable to refute my prior comments with relevant FACTS. So out of desperation, you resorted to posting a meandering tirade consisting of nonsensical gobbledygook.

Also, how do you know so much about jack-boots? How many pairs do you own?

Rhonda...when you figure out that all of your words have no meaning in the context of this debate...maybe you can move forward and admit the truth of the reality of TODAY....that the conservative movement and tea party harbor an ugly racist streak (as well a a misogynistic and anti-gay streak)...and that the core of the movement is the targeting of "the other" as its main recruitment mehtod...it is there for all to see...out in the open...but you remain in denial...not unlike many "good" Germans during the 1930's...

Well, the rest of us live in the real world. Now I'm done with you

Caligula:

Now I understand why you chose the moniker "Caligula". He was a nut, too.

And once again, you presented NOTHING of substance in your latest comment...just another dose of hyperbole and false allegations WITHOUT a scintilla of examples, facts, or documentation to back up anything you wrote. Do you ALWAYS debate like that? It's probably why you usually lose the discussion. Your feeble effort to ascribe racism, misogynism, and anti-gay behavior to Republicans is exactly the opposite of the truth. So let's examine your allegations one at a time.

The racism charge has already been debunked by me in excruciating detail in two previous comments. I noticed that you carefully avoided challenging ANYTHING specific that I mentioned in those comments. In addition, let’s consider the vilification of Herman Cain in his quest to be the Republican nominee for president. Hillary Clinton, a lifelong Democrat bureaucrat, mocked Herman Cain and the “Godfather Pizza” name while sitting next to the real godfather of cocaine/heroin, corrupt thug Hamid Karzai (president of Afghanistan). Meanwhile the mainstream news media concentrated on unverified charges of sexual misconduct against Herman Cain brought forward by disgruntled former co-workers. I wonder why all that hoopla magically disappeared once Mr. Cain was hounded out of the race. The Democrats should have continued to pursue misconduct charges against Herman Cain for the sake of principle and respect for women IF THERE WERE ANY CREDENCE TO THOSE CHARGES! Apparently, sexual misconduct was no longer an issue once the black candidate had been removed from the Republican primaries. In other words, “Herman Cain finally knew his place.” I guess the Democrats weren’t truly concerned about women’s safety/rights after all.

And wasn’t a similar spurious accusation directed at John McCain in the previous presidential election? The New York Times carried a headline story (which eventually proved to be false) about John McCain’s sexual dalliance with a personal secretary/office worker. Yeah, the Democrats certainly are fair-minded, tolerant, and interested in justice for all (insert laugh track here).

Republicans are misogynists? Look at the Democrat treatment of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham, etc. Bill Maher called Sarah Palin the "C" word. Saturday Night Live mocked her (“I can see Russia from my kitchen window,” which Sarah never said). Moreover, The New York Times sent an army of investigative reporters (and invited ANYONE else who was like-minded) to go to Alaska to pour over thousands of recently released inter-office memo’s generated while Sarah Palin was governor. The goal was to dig up dirt on Governor Palin, who wasn’t even running for political office at the time. Apparently, NOTHING negative was found because the entire effort faded into oblivion, suggesting that Sarah Palin was squeaky clean. Yet none of the investigators would publicly announce their dead-end search. So, the Democrats went after Sarah’s family, mocking them, judging them, ridiculing even the Downs Syndrome child. The Democrats have no shame at all.

In contrast, when Barak Obama and Bill Clinton vehemently urged their opponents to refrain from attacking family members because that’s an unfair “low blow”, the Democrats hailed that advice, but only as it applied to Democrats; it was still open-season on attacking Republicans. The Democrats will attack ANY member of a Republican family in an attempt to destroy them. Remember the attacks against Laura Bush (she was in an auto accident where someone got killed 20 YEARS AGO) and the Bush daughters (they were party-goers)? Yet the mainstream news media never really vetted President Obama regarding his use of hard drugs, or the revelation of his college grades, or what was in his college thesis, or how much influence his extremist friends had on him, or revelations about his wife’s extravagant life style at taxpayer’s expense.

Also, when Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann agreed to appear on Jimmy Fallon’s late night program, Fallon’s house band greeted her with a distinctive snippet from Fishbone’s song “Lyin’ Ass Bitch.” Yeah, that was real classy. Then there’s Ed Schultz (msnbc host), who called Laura Ingraham a “Right-Wing Slut” during one of his radio broadcasts. Democrats sure do respect women (insert laugh track here).

If that’s not enough, there’s the Democrat proposal to cut/decrease the frequency of pap smears and mammograms permitted under Obamacare in order to save money. Yeah, that’s certainly indicative of a pro-women agenda. And did you know that the vast majority of jobs lost on Obama’s watch were jobs held by women? The estimates generally rise above the 75 percentile (you can check that out on google).

Regarding bias towards gay people: Republicans are against same-sex marriage, just as President Obama said he is. And many other Democrat leaders agree with that view, too. So there’s little disagreement on that point. In May 2003, Republican President George Bush provided $15 billion (three times more money than Democrat President Bill Clinton) to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean.

Now go polish your jack-boots. You’ve been stepping in a lot of bulls**t lately.

Hello Rhonda, that old adage that if you say it often enough people will start believing it. That used to work, but unfortunately for the purveyors of propaganda their time has finally run out. Too many people have woken up to the old control programs that have gone the way of the Dodo bird. People are finally trusting their instinct and intuition and understanding that we can no longer be segregated because we are all one. The enlightened people of mother Earth are now working for the betterment of our global society and have left those who spew hate, fear and separation in the lower vibrations that they have chosen to stay in. Good luck, but don't worry, you will join us eventually, it just takes some a little longer to get there.

TrustVerify:

YOU WROTE: "...that old adage that if you say it often enough people will start believing it. That used to work, but unfortunately for the purveyors of propaganda their time has finally run out. Too many people have woken up to the old control programs that have gone the way of the Dodo bird."

MY RESPONSE: I AGREE! The Democrats' tired old utterings that they are "looking out for black folks" while the Republicans are "racists" just doesn't wash anymore. It only requires a familiarization with historical FACTS (as I listed them in my three prior comments) to deduce that the Democrat Party is the party of the four S's: slavery, segregation, secession, and now socialism. I'm glad you finally recognize the Democrat Party's expertise on the use of propaganda to keep black folks on the Democrat plantation.

I used to be a Democrat; I voted for Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter. Fortunately, I learned the TRUTH about the Democrat Party and switched my allegiance to the Republican Party, the Party of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr. You will probably join us too; it just takes some people a little longer to get there.

Hello Rhonda, you forgot, I'm a political atheist. I don't believe in fundamentalist anything especially poltics.What you portray the Democrats as, I agree, except for the Guns, God, Gays, and Racism, the Republicans own most of the psychosis on those fronts although there are also some Democrats that are as ignorant on those fronts. When you allow society to pidgeon hole you in to a position you are then prisoner to a ideology whether it be Democrat or Republican. You then are nothing but a drone for whatever party you espouse. When they get you to select a side they then have you in fear, divided, and distracted to the brainwashing you feel obligated to defend.

Religions, ism's (Comunism, Socialism, Capitalism, etc.), political parties, ethnicities, countries, genders, sexual orientation, etc. are all used against us to keep us divided and at each others throats while the powers that be plunder humanity and the planet for their own excesses. May we all come together as a planet. In peace and love, take care.

TrustVerify:

YOU WROTE: "I'm a political atheist. I don't believe in fundamentalist anything especially poltics."

MY RESPONSE: He who stands for nothing falls for everything. Just because a person is a registered Democrat or a registered Republican doesn't mean that person can't cross party lines to vote for the best candidate in an election. When I was a registered Democrat, I sometimes voted for a Republican candidate when I thought that person was the best candidate for public office. And now that I'm a registered Republican, I can still say that I voted for a few LOCAL Democrats who I determined were the best people to fill public service positions. But at least I'm commited to something in the political realm.

Since you seem to like old adages, here's one for you to consider: "Those who sit in the middle of the road get hit by traffic moving in both directions." In other words, don't be wishy-washy or you could get hurt (figuratively).

TrustVerify and Rhonda; many of us choose who to vote for based on the CANDIDATE rather than any political Party. If I were dropped on Earth from another planet I would be hard pressed to figure out what a democrat, republican, or "tea-party" person is from people's attacks and assertions. My kids didn't know until they started to hear other people's prejudiced definitions from friends.

The problem is so FEW good people choose to run for elected office.

That is why is it always pleasantly surprising to get a candidate who could actually "DO SOMETHING" to contribute to society outside of politics, eg. an MD, professor, scientist, etc. We get mostly career politicians and lawyers.

Regarding all the "peace & love" stuff, isn't a little difference of views and ambition required to move mankind forward, make us work harder?? Why should we all think the same way?? The problem is that politics has become the dumping ground for all that is wrong with human bigotry, illogic and ill-emotions. That is partly an artifact of our current president.

It is the worst I can remember in terms of the nation's political discourse lowering the CRITICAL THINKING and CIVIL EXCHANGE OF IDEAS that American society needs to Move Forward.

Two VERY SMART people like you . . what is there to disagree about??!!

Mark,,, You aren't the only one who's noticed. Both strip searches in prison & the mandate is to protect the innocent. Both protect the business involved in carrying out rewards or discipline

But who knows? This is the court that disregarded our rights with Bush v Gore & Citizens united. They just might stick up for business & commerce & give us the mandate

Even if the warrant had been valid, failure to pay a fine is not a crime in New Jersey.

Pardon me JJMurray,

WHAT "crime"? A man was strip searched TWICE for an unpaid fine???

Welcome to the USA Taliban.

JJMUrray - hmmm ...how about the idea that someone buying a gun could be planning a massacre ? Would you not go into a chest beating wail of misery crying about your first amendment rights if anyone were to suggest that guns be banned ?

Righties are very inconsistent with their "freedoms" and "small government" agenda.

He wasn't arrested for a crime and he was kept in jail for 2 weeks without due process. So in your mind, the police should treat all of us as potential violent criminals who could be carrying conceal weapons or have drugs stuffed up our butts. Oh, that's right, in a lot of states we CAN carry concealed weapons. And this guy was repeatedly strip searched, even though he didn't leave police custody. I hate to say it, but I'd like to know the race and/or nationality of this person... just for kicks. This court is slowly chipping away our rights as citizens.

United Fascist States of America....

How do ya like THAT name....

JJMurray, perhaps you should have read the article more thorough. "Even if the warrant had been valid, failure to pay a fine is not a crime in New Jersey." So this guy was submitted to degrading procecures for an invalid warant on a crime that wasn't a crime.

It is not about the "crime," he was in jail and therefore subject to being stripped searched.

Actually - he was in jail for being mistaken for somebody who had a warrant for an unpaid fine. This guy didn't even do anything wrong at ALL.

So much for due process...2 weeks imprisonment for a false arrest? Thank you Uncle George W...

raddave,

Being arrested is not the same as being convicted. If you ever talk back to an officer (even in the course of protecting your own rights) expect to be arrested. And once you're arrested, expect to be strip searched now.

I will start out with I hate this decision.

But guess what, it was basically set with an earlier precedent. And my guess people cheered the 1979 ruling.

The mandate for insurance will set up something very similar. If they say it is constitutional now people will cheer and then later when the Courts basically say the Government can force us to buy anything the same group that cheered will be pissed.

Get ready for the trickle down effect to occur...

So someone is jailed who is innocent and they get strip searched. Where is their justice?

Now we will have cops arresting hot women just so they can strip search them. And if you don't think this will happen, you have your head up where the sun don't shine.

FYI - the patriot act of 2001 voting results 98 - 1, In 2006 the vote was 89 - 10. PBO voted YEA.

You know who never voted for it? Ron Paul

I agree with some on here saying the Repubs are hypocrites, because in this case most are.

So I guess when Zimmerman finally gets arrested, he gets the hand up the butt? Think positive!

Tom - Plymouth:

I will start out with I hate this decision.
But guess what, it was basically set with an earlier precedent. And my guess people cheered the 1979 ruling.

Pray tell, to what 1979 SCOTUS ruling are you referring?

Thanks.

I love the sentence "People detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals," the court said.

Doesn't that apply to anybody you see walking down the street?

VTKaren, your google not working?

1979 Supreme Court case, Bell v. Wolfish

Let me put this to you as simply as I can because apparently I used words that were too big for some of you.

1) I never said it was a crime, however since you brought it up, the person can still apparently go to jail for not paying a fine otherwise WHY was he in jail at all?

2) It doesn't matter if you are EVENTUALLY found guilty or innocent. At the beginning of the process people are often sent to JAIL until their guilt or innocence can be determined, until they have a hearing, and/or until they can make bail.

3) Jail is a CONTROLLED environment. That means EVERYTHING that comes in is controlled (that's the plan at least). NO ONE gets put into jail without making sure they are not carrying something which could be dangerous to themselves, the officers, or the other inmates. That is for EVERYONE'S safety.

4) Innocent people find themselves in jail sometimes. It happens because we are humans and humans are fallible. Even so, the majority of people who wind up in a jail cell are there because they did something wrong. Now, if you are willing to allow people to go into jail without a thorough search then YOU can go work there and YOU can be responsible for anyone getting killed, wounded, drugged out, whatever. Otherwise let the people whose lives are the ones on the line protect themselves.

Tom - Plymouth,

VTKaren, your google not working?

Yes, my Google and Yahoo etc, are working. There were lots of decisions in 1979, so I asked for a specific. You gave me one. Thank you!

And what a "one"! 1979 Supreme Court case, Bell v. Wolfish, where the Court's main point of the decision was: "incarcerated to ensure their appearance at trial,..."

The New Jersey case has nothing to do with TRIAL... it's about ARREST. Please cite a REAL case re: 4th Amendment/arrest/strip search. Except for police ineptitude, this is a case of judicial law-making.)

P.S, I really, really do hope you contact me with some Law Review write-up or case law.

VT - One of many searches that say this case is based on the one copied and pasted above.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/story/2011-10-10/supreme-court-strip-search/50723486/1

At the core of the constitutional dispute before the justices, the opposing sides argue over how to apply the 1979 Supreme Court case, Bell v. Wolfish, in which the justices upheld strip-searches for prisoners after visits with outsiders. That case has divided lower courts, resulting in a split over whether a blanket policy of strip-searches for all those arrested is constitutional.

Florence's lawyers say jailers, and judges, must take into account the individual and his offense. "There is no reason to strip-search this particular group of people" arrested for non-criminal offenses, says Susan Chana Lask, Florence's lead lawyer. She says the government's interest in deterring contraband does not outweigh the wholesale intrusion on personal privacy.

FYI I am not lawyer!

This SCOTUS decision is hard to believe! For minor offenses? Good grief!

You all do realize that the parallels here in the US to rise of fascism in Germany are staggering, right? When do you think the people of Nazi Germany realized the full scope of what was happening? After millions were dead, that's when.

Tom - Plymouth,,

"copied and pasted"....

Welcome to the USA uneducated.

There is a reason Liberal Arts (LA) are (should be) a mainstay of education; LA combined with business skills rules the world. LA: English, History, Rhetoric, Anthropology.... I'm sorry you missed that.

FYI I am not lawyer!

Why the exclamation point? Our Constitution is only about law. When you get your JD, come back and post.

JJMurray,

Sheesh! I guess the common sense concern that someone arrested for a crime might bring something illegal into the jail is just too tough a concept for you to grasp.

Did you know that most contraband in jails is controlled by the guards themselves? I guess not being able to strip search people would have cut into their business.

Tom - Plymouth,,

VT - One of many searches that say this case is based on the one copied and pasted above.

"That case has divided lower courts, resulting in a split over whether a blanket policy of strip-searches for all those arrested is constitutional."

Tom - Plymouth --, I sincerely hope you see your "belief". Hypocrisy is a bitch.

Given that, vote your conscience! I will vote mine.

"Florence's lawyers say jailers, and judges, must take into account the individual and his offense. "There is no reason to strip-search this particular group of people" arrested for non-criminal offenses, says Susan Chana Lask, Florence's lead lawyer. She says the government's interest in deterring contraband does not outweigh the wholesale intrusion on personal privacy."

The Government's interest in deterring contraband does not outweigh the wholesale intrusion on personal privacy? Translation = If you (Inmate #1) get arrested for minor offense you should not be strip-searched, OK I can almost agree with that BUT, what about the 1 knife that was missed from that person arrested for a minor offense (Inmate #2) who did not want to disclose that it was on their persons due to fear of getting charged with Introduction of Contraband and then that knife ends up in the hands of a violent offender (Inmate #3) and is then used to kill the minor offense arrestee (Inmate #1)? Sounds like a far-fetched sequence of events? Do not believe isn't. It happens, and when it does, rest assured your estate will be suing the jail, prison, holding facility, Warden, Sheriff, County, booking officers, etc, etc, etc and will be asking how something like this could have ever happened in America and there was a blatant violation of the Constitution's 8th Amendment and it was their DUTY TO PROTECT.

Even if she was falsely arrested, I would prefer to have my grandmother strip-searched and know that she is safer because of it rather than have to plan her funeral because of someone else being able to smuggle something that could harm her.

This is the beginnings of the sort of thing that LEGAL immigrants from the former Sose woviet Union were afraid of, when they'd see a pair of cop lights come up behind them, while driving down the road. They already experienced the KGB and GRU first hand; so have living memories of being subjected to that sorta thing when stopped by the authorities. And that's to say nothing of the Siberian labor camps; and the possibility of neighbors turning in those who "aren't good Soviet citizens..." This sort of thing would counter those fears, born if first hand experience....

Wow Karen why the personal attacks because you think I don't agree with you?

I happen to have an MBA in Computer Science so I am not sure if I am uneducated or not by your standards. The exclamation point was because you seemed to be holding me to that standard.

I really don't know where you are going with any of this or what I am being a hypocrite about.

Tom - Plymouth,

Make a coherent argument, or let it go. Poor baby: "personal attack..."? Huh?

(I am BA, BS, MS, MBA and PhD [Engineering] -- we do actually exist on the Vine!) Do you really want to get the ruler out (I'm a girl, btw...?)

I disagree with you. Please, hold onto to your belief. I will choose OPINION.

(BTW, MBA in "computer science"...? Never heard of that. Congrats!)

The Danger of American Fascism

Henry A. Wallace

An article in the New York Times, April 9, 1944.
From Henry A. Wallace, Democracy Reborn (New York, 1944), edited by Russell Lord, p. 259.

1. On returning from my trip to the West in February, I received a request from The New York Times to write a piece answering the following questions:

   1. What is a fascist?

   2. How many fascists have we?

   3. How dangerous are they?

2. A fascist is one whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends. The supreme god of a fascist, to which his ends are directed, may be money or power; may be a race or a class; may be a military, clique or an economic group; or may be a culture, religion, or a political party.

3. The perfect type of fascist throughout recent centuries has been the Prussian Junker, who developed such hatred for other races and such allegiance to a military clique as to make him willing at all times to engage in any degree of deceit and violence necessary to place his culture and race astride the world. In every big nation of the world are at least a few people who have the fascist temperament. Every Jew-baiter, every Catholic hater, is a fascist at heart. The hoodlums who have been desecrating churches, cathedrals and synagogues in some of our larger cities are ripe material for fascist leadership.

4. The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.

5. If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort. They are doing this even in those cases where they hope to have profitable connections with German chemical firms after the war ends. They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead.

6. American fascism will not be really dangerous until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information, and those who stand for the K.K.K. type of demagoguery.

7. The European brand of fascism will probably present its most serious postwar threat to us via Latin America. The effect of the war has been to raise the cost of living in most Latin American countries much faster than the wages of labor. The fascists in most Latin American countries tell the people that the reason their wages will not buy as much in the way of goods is because of Yankee imperialism. The fascists in Latin America learn to speak and act like natives. Our chemical and other manufacturing concerns are all too often ready to let the Germans have Latin American markets, provided the American companies can work out an arrangement which will enable them to charge high prices to the consumer inside the United States. Following this war, technology will have reached such a point that it will be possible for Germans, using South America as a base, to cause us much more difficulty in World War III than they did in World War II. The military and landowning cliques in many South American countries will find it attractive financially to work with German fascist concerns as well as expedient from the standpoint of temporary power politics.

8. Fascism is a worldwide disease. Its greatest threat to the United States will come after the war, either via Latin America or within the United States itself.

9. Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion. American fascists of this stamp were clandestinely aligned with their German counterparts before the war, and are even now preparing to resume where they left off, after “the present unpleasantness” ceases:

10. The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances. But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. It is no coincidence that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice. It may be shocking to some people in this country to realize that, without meaning to do so, they hold views in common with Hitler when they preach discrimination against other religious, racial or economic groups. Likewise, many people whose patriotism is their proudest boast play Hitler’s game by retailing distrust of our Allies and by giving currency to snide suspicions without foundation in fact.

11. The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact. Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy. They use isolationism as a slogan to conceal their own selfish imperialism. They cultivate hate and distrust of both Britain and Russia. They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.

12. Several leaders of industry in this country who have gained a new vision of the meaning of opportunity through co-operation with government have warned the public openly that there are some selfish groups in industry who are willing to jeopardize the structure of American liberty to gain some temporary advantage. We all know the part that the cartels played in bringing Hitler to power, and the rule the giant German trusts have played in Nazi conquests. Monopolists who fear competition and who distrust democracy because it stands for equal opportunity would like to secure their position against small and energetic enterprise. In an effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice democracy itself.

13. It has been claimed at times that our modern age of technology facilitates dictatorship. What we must understand is that the industries, processes, and inventions created by modern science can be used either to subjugate or liberate. The choice is up to us. The myth of fascist efficiency has deluded many people. It was Mussolini’s vaunted claim that he “made the trains run on time.” In the end, however, he brought to the Italian people impoverishment and defeat. It was Hitler’s claim that he eliminated all unemployment in Germany. Neither is there unemployment in a prison camp.

14. Democracy to crush fascism internally must demonstrate its capacity to “make the trains run on time.” It must develop the ability to keep people fully employed and at the same time balance the budget. It must put human beings first and dollars second. It must appeal to reason and decency and not to violence and deceit. We must not tolerate oppressive government or industrial oligarchy in the form of monopolies and cartels. As long as scientific research and inventive ingenuity outran our ability to devise social mechanisms to raise the living standards of the people, we may expect the liberal potential of the United States to increase. If this liberal potential is properly channeled, we may expect the area of freedom of the United States to increase. The problem is to spend up our rate of social invention in the service of the welfare of all the people.

15. The worldwide, agelong struggle between fascism and democracy will not stop when the fighting ends in Germany and Japan. Democracy can win the peace only if it does two things:

    1. Speeds up the rate of political and economic inventions so that both production and, especially, distribution can match in their power and practical effect on the daily life of the common man the immense and growing volume of scientific research, mechanical invention and management technique.

    2. Vivifies with the greatest intensity the spiritual processes which are both the foundation and the very essence of democracy.

16. The moral and spiritual aspects of both personal and international relationships have a practical bearing which so-called practical men deny. This dullness of vision regarding the importance of the general welfare to the individual is the measure of the failure of our schools and churches to teach the spiritual significance of genuine democracy. Until democracy in effective enthusiastic action fills the vacuum created by the power of modern inventions, we may expect the fascists to increase in power after the war both in the United States and in the world.

17. Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races, creeds and classes.

18. It should also be evident that exhibitions of the native brand of fascism are not confined to any single section, class or religion. Happily, it can be said that as yet fascism has not captured a predominant place in the outlook of any American section, class or religion. It may be encountered in Wall Street, Main Street or Tobacco Road. Some even suspect that they can detect incipient traces of it along the Potomac. It is an infectious disease, and we must all be on our guard against intolerance, bigotry and the pretension of invidious distinction. But if we put our trust in the common sense of common men and “with malice toward none and charity for all” go forward on the great adventure of making political, economic and social democracy a practical reality, we shall not fail.

dude that is just too big ass a post for anybody to read ...

I am afraid only people who are doing pHD on social media are ever gonna read it. In fact there is probably enough material in your post for them to complete their thesis by plagiarising just 50% of it...

Fascism at its finest.

@Soporos,

Thank you. Finest post here today.

#2.36 BoredwithsameO -- My pleasure.

#2.34 MrIndia: Yes its a rather long piece. However, it seems to me that the dying art of reading is a rather large component of why we face the massive systemic problems we have today. Perhaps you prefer a simple argument like the SCOTUS are a bunch of dootyheads?

VT, I am really sorry you are such an angry person hopefully one day you can be happy and congrats on being a girl I am not sure why that matters.

"Make a coherent argument, or let it go."

What am I making a coherent argument about? Many sources/articles reference the 1979 case as why this one was being heard.

I think you are the one lacking a coherent argument because I have no idea what you are saying.

Master of Business Administration with emphasis on Computer Science

Nice job Tom

Hey now I happen to believe getting stripped search is not the worst thing in the world. For all you out there that scream he was innocent, that is not the point of jail to decide. The point of jail is to house defendants, many of which were brought in on violent crimes. These same people would be crying a river if one of these guys shives are buddy Al. So I guess no one knows any guards. If a guard is stab because a search isn't done, what is, it oh well? Al wouldn't want to sue if he ended up in some cell with a derelict that gave him lice?

This is simply about keeping every one safe. Inmates as well as guards.

I think due process would of been more in question. Took a week to clear up.

Oh and yeah I went to jail once. I think I had a few more rights there than when I was in the Navy.

I also don't like the Patriot Act and think the healthcare law is unconstitutional.

Not against healthcare reform just the way they did it by making us buy a private parties product.

Tom - Plymouth,


Sincerely, I did not mean a personal attack on Tom - Plymouth.

VT, I am really sorry you are such an angry person hopefully one day you can be happy and congrats on being a girl I am not sure why that matters.

I'm a Boomer! If you are under 50 years old, you have no idea what it took to become a "Mathematician"/ "Engineer" in the late '70s/early 80s. We "girls" were treated as the "wannabees" and/or "Lesbians."

(Go Tigers!)

"Make a coherent argument, or let it go."

Master of Business Administration with emphasis on Computer Science... Congrats!

Deep breath....

It took A LOT for me to even think about posting my bone fides. I sincerely think my cohort (Ivy League) don't even know what MSNBC is. My cohort is busy doing important "stuff."

They're not disabled. For the past five-ish years I have not contributed.

AND YET, Tom - Plymouth, I regret my earlier post. I do not regret my response. (Huh, what?) NO "Peer Reviewed" studies show a significantly relationships.

Before the five years ago I left., I've been out of the "game" for over five years, and for many years I was a player!

Tom - Plymouth,

I'm never, ever again gonna trade bone fides with you. Your inability to research before posting makes you ignored.

What ever happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty ?

Guess we are all guilty now .

I think Bruno is right. This ruling penalizes the 99.9% of us for the .1% who are criminally violent. I don't think this was the way the founding fathers would have wanted our justice system to be.

@ Bruno, have you flown lately through an American airport? Ever since the inception of TSA, everyone in America is suspected of being a terrorist, not just those of olive colored skin or someone not American looking. We gladly enjoy being molested by people who have more power than a sworn police officer while flying these days all in the name of safety. A police officer in America cannot stop any citizen for any reason and just start frisking them. But the TSA can..

It's odd in a way; many would take issue with profiling as it's practiced in Israel. So instead, everyone is treated as a terrorist threat, and subjected to extra scrutiny, and enhanced pat downs. Even 6 month old babies....

This is what a police state looks like folks! There is more profit in incarcerating and removing dissidence. What Constitution???

Chief Judicial Activist John Roberts was put on the bench by the fundamentalist church. they ordered their puppet, illegally appointed Acting President George the lesser to appoint this monster to the bench.

Call and write your representatives and tell them to impeach John Roberts... Do it now!!!

And thats my opinion

That "sharia law" that people are needlessly scared of is seriously starting to look like an improvement.

I fail to see why you want Justice Roberts head. Justice Kennedy is the one that wrote the opinion. so if you felt that it was right and they went the other way would it be Justices Ginsbergs head you would want. it was 5-4 so therefore close call. as far as the Bush Gore issue the Constitution was the basis of the decision there and Hillary said she would have the Electoral Collage removed after that ruling what happened there.

Truth be told, one could have brought up the Constitution, and ruled the other way also. The few law classes I had taken in college, the teacher (who incidently was also assistant DA, I guess the teaching job was a second job); gave us test questions that made us the prosicution and the defense (seperate questions), and had us argue both sides. We could even use the same statutes, and many times get down into the nity gritty of how you define this or that word; to argue diametrically opposite points from the same law....

There's also more then 1 interpretive model wrt interpreting the Constitution, from a more literalist view, to the "living document" approach, which sees it as also adaptive to changing times. I probably don't need to say which is the more conservative model, and which is the more literal. There are some other models in use as well by various justices....

They cited McVeigh and a 911 hijacker. So if they were strip searched what good would it have done? I think we should look at the opinion. This seems like quite a stretch even for the SC.

My thoughts exactly. It's not like the guy produced a truck bomb form his ass. What a ridiculous ruling.

Yeah my thoughts too, but, what about the att. who argued the case? I would have said well he didn't have a plane up his arse, or, couple hundred pound of ammonium nitrate either. Yeah this is a bul--hit law no matter how you look at it. What really kills me it's in the interest of safety, I'm thinking they probably hired in some S/M security.

Really it's not just this one law that has people upset and everyone of them that's being put out there will make almost everyone who does not lock step with the wishes of the government a criminal.

"Tiiihme is not on our side" sing it again.

Gilboagirl,

I, too, am a Democrat/Progressive.

For me the most saddening thing is that Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.

Are we no longer "the land of the free"?

with decisions like this we are all in trouble in November. The Democrats will turn us into a totalitarian form of government where we all work for the government an all pay goes to taxes and the republicans will turn it all over to the corporate business to have their way with it. In the end we are all on the losing side

Actually Gene you may want to research a bit further, this is considered a win for PBO.

From the San Fran Chronicle though Bloomberg

"Today's ruling is a victory for the Obama administration, which contended that prison and jail officials need wide latitude to fashion security and safety policies."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/04/02/bloomberg_articlesM1UV8Z6JTSEE01-M1UZP.DTL

Tom irregardless of who's benefit it is we all lose. Your Government gains more power over you and you are now subject to strip-search for just being picked up no need to be found guilty just taken to a police station and booked without regards to any other fact. But then it is no different then what the TSA does. So i really don't need to research any farther. The one thing you can take out of it though is that at least the Federal Government can't declare Marshall Law yet SCOUS already ruled that out with Abraham Lincoln

can't believe how assinine these posts are. Ever watched "Shawshank Redemption?" Everyone going to jail should be strip searched (and deloused)! This ruling applies to be people arrested and going to jail for booking. Not the man on the street. Mistakes/malice happens (rarely). There is recourse for false arrest/imprisonment.

If we don't like it - change the law and or the Constitution!

Furthermore the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government. Its authority is defined in the Constitution. It is comprised of justices nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. To distill the court to conservative vs. liberal is stupid. Read their reasoning and understand each justice's basic point of view - don't impune them simply because they were nominated by certain presidents.

stinky pig, history tells us that members of the supreme court often vote in line with their nominating president. To think otherwise is naive.

In all due fairness, I don't think this decision was representative of what many Tea Partiers would be looking for. Both political parties, Democrat and Republican alike, are massive entities, with more then a couple voting blocks among them. And the different factions if you will within each party, doesn't exactly agree on every point, or every issue that might come up in a party platform....

Truth be told, I think many among both parties might have a problem with this ruling here....

The Justices have IMMUNITY from decisions they make in the course of doing their job.

Sovereign Immunity for government officials must be corrected and eliminated. They must be responsible for their decisions.

There is nothing even remotely "libertarian"about support for these police state tactics. Please do a little research before waving that tar-coated brush around.

It's clear to me that the Liberals and Conservatives a-like hate this decision. They blame different people for why it happened. And that's why we have the broken system we have. As long as it is someone else's fault, we won't look in the mirror and assign blame to who is really at fault for the horrible rights-stripping government we have.

Pragmatic, This Court has been attacking liberty and freedom as a habit. Can you recall the horrendous decision that further expanded "eminent domain" powers? Liberals hated that decision because they felt that it stripped property rights from individuals, Conservatives hated the decision because it expanded government power. This court seems to favor anything that diminishes individual rights and expands the interests of business.

To anyone who doesn't that this country has been bought and paid for, I feel sorry for you...

I agree with your statement. Bringing McVeigh or the 9/11 suspects into this argument for strip searching was, at best, grasping at straws in order to support this decision.

Not only didn't it, it would not have. Which pretty much highlights how useless strip searching is.

Didn't you guys know? McVeigh had all 7,000 pounds of explosives hiding in his underwear. If only the cops would have dropped his pants in the name of security. Oh wait, McVeigh was arrested AFTER the bombing. That explains why the police didn't find anything.

At last, a small voice of reason amongst the polemics. Johannes, I guarantee you that most of these posters would be screaming just as loudly if some poor prisoner got shanked with a knife that had been smuggled into the jail.

denver bill, You can't be serious. Try sticking to the facts. In most jurisdictions, people detained for minor offenses are not treated like potentially violent criminals. The actions the plaintiff were subjected to are unreasonable and unconstitutional. Well, they were before this activist court further stripped us of our rights. You can now be detained and treated just like a violent criminal for committing NO OFFENSE! Even if the suspected "offense" is not criminal, you can still be detained and stripped searched.

I am glad you are so comfortable with this further erosion of our rights. You can choose to be afraid of your made up scenarios. I'll be afraid for the encroachment on our liberty.

He probably did sue. Where do you think he got the money to get this to the SCOUS

Johannes,

Cases only get to the supreme court through other jusdicial actions. The fact that this case was heard by the supremes means that it had already bounced throught the lower courts (superior court, appelate court, etc).

The supremes can either chose to hear a case or throw it back to the lower courts. For this guy, the supreme court was the last stop. He's done.

Especially if they uphold obamacare.

nothing new - The ones who upheld this mockery of justice are the same ones who want to throw out "obamacare".

Does that EVER make you stop and think?

Hey Nothing New, You do know that the healthcare pay mandate in Obama care was the republican idea used back in 93 to stop Hilary from fixing healthcare rising costs, you do know the history of that idea...Yes? You must know that the Newt and Boehner supported this idea that came out of republican think tank...you do don't you? Try watching a real news channel and see the two knuckleheads video supporting it along with most other republicans. Obama had it put in to bill as an appeasement to repubs when they opposed anything put in, like the single payer idea. Surely they would vote for their own idea and proposals.....! Except their only plan was to vote against Obama on everything, which they have, and not for the good of America. I am surprised the repubs didn't have the Supreme Court add another tax break for the rich republicans in their decision!

They are a dangerous slippery slope to a Nazi-like police state, as well. The GOP right-wing would apparently have felt quite at home in Nazi Germany or in any of the rigidly controlled Middle Eastern States- "security" trumping liberty at every turn. How appalling.

Really? wow

Really? wow

Yes. Fascism (like Nazi Germany) is a far right system of government.

Fascism (like Nazi Germany) is a far right system of government -

so, to complete the metaphor, Obama is Stalin, right?

Taditionally Fascism has actually sprung from the left and has almost without exception resulted from far left leaning regimes. The Nazi's were (NA)tional (S)ocilists - go back and look at their banners proclaiming 'national healthcare' and 'social justice'. Socialism is an interim solution that never lasts for very long.. it usually progresses quickly to totalitarianism and strict control over personal liberties, supplies, housing, water, etc. With elite rulers and a peasant class.

If you read anything about Hitler, Mussolini, or fascism in general, you would know Nazism called itself socialism like the People's Republic of China calls itself a republic. It was a lie. In every treatise or manifesto on fascism, including Mussolini's party platform, the first or second item is how strongly fascism is opposed to socialism. During the Holocaust, Communists were among the first to be sent to camps, as Hitler believed that Communism was a Jewish conspiracy. From there, Hitler moved on to anyone displaying any kind of left-wing ideology, including trade-unionists and social democrats. Think before you quote the name of an organization as a comprehensive description of that organization's purpose and ideology.

The man in this case was a BLACK MAN, This ruling is just to prevent him from taking action in the courts and be duley compensated for the egregious infringment on is civil rights,Dont worry AMERICA as soon as this start impacting WHITE PEOPLE it will be repeal.

I suppose they think he might have had the entire 9/11 attack plan rolled up in a cigar tube up his butt for safe-keeping.

This is way beyond what most of us would expect from the SCOTUS. Body searches are to find drugs and if there's no reason to suspect the person is hiding them, then a search is both useless and invasive. Who would keep a weapon up their butt? It's certainly not easily accessible which is the whole point of carrying one.

You fail to realize if they would of strip searched McVey they would of found a truck with expolosives up his A**. The 9/11 hijacker was hiding a 747 up his so yeah these are reasonable searches. SARCASM/off

UDunnoBro, they would have found the plane.

Who would keep a weapon up their butt?

Well you can use your head as a weapon, and the 5 justices who voted for this appear to have their heads up their butts - so yes you could have a weapon up your butt.

Silly, they were using that as an example to show that even those who are stopped for little crimes can turn out to be really dangerous, awful people.

Hyperbole.

@Not a Drone, The comment is full of hype, but would you believe this actually happened to the subject of this case? doesn't this entire scenario sound like a made up drama? A person is arrested on a warrant issued in error for a fine that he actually already paid. He is subjected to two strip searches over the course of his detention at two jails. It turns out that the failure to pay a fine in his state is not a criminal offense.

This sounds like the plot to a television drama. It should never have reached the Supreme Court. Now, our rights have been further eroded. The plaintiff needs to sue the State of NJ...

Obama extended the patriot act

DOH DOH,

Obama extended the patriot act

??????????

You, sir/ma'am, do not say what your position is on this topic.

The "Vine" is about taking/ repudiating/ supporting a position.

There are ignorant posts to connect the President ( Damn proud Cap P) and a SCOTUS and there are worse than that. How anyone can be so arrogant as to think that they have done just that is so far beyond reality. The right leaning CONservative Roberts court has not even once supported anything Mr Obama has done. They will undoubtedly go down in history as the most corrupt SCOTUS ever and there have been some real beauts. Roberts is not in charge nor in control, the Koch Bros run the SCOTUS of that there is no question. Thomas and Scalia should be impeached immediately and hopefully replaced. These two criminals spit in the face of all honest judiciary and laugh all the way to the bank with their ill gotten gains from the Koch boys.

What does Omama have to do with this... Nothing Stop trolling!

What? I think you are the one with the small p.

bush appointees small b BIG MISTAKE

You damn fools. We have robert blaming socialism for the decision by a conservative court and just about everybody else blaming Bush for loading up the court with conservatives. This isn't a Democrat or Republican issue. It's an American one. It impacts you and me, regardless of our political party. We're talking about yet another whittling away of rights as defined in the Constitution. The right to privacy doesn't get more private than the right to control who sees you naked. If you stop blaming the other party and hold our leaders, no matter their political stripe, accountable for the seizure of your God-given rights, only then will these clowns get on board. If you blame the other guy, your guy is gonna keep whittling away your rights and you'll excuse him because he's your guy. Damned fools! The cops won't ask if you're a D or R before they drop your drawers.

robert northerner, Have you bumped your head? This Court is stripping away the rights assured all of us by the Constitution. Regardless of what I think about the current POTUS, it was the previous President that launched the attack on our rights. The Patriot Act, do you recall who pushed that through? Either you realize that your rights are under seige or you are fine with it as long as the right party is doing the dirty work. Which is it?

If there is ever a 2nd American Revolution or Civil War you would be right.

American Revolution only about 27,500 Americans 10,000 british so about 37,500 total Died during that war.

American Civil War: As many as 620,000 individuals lost their lives during the Civil War.

So if a 2nd American Revolution happened it would be about if not more bloody then a Civil War.

Leatherneck918, a second American Revolution would only be more bloody than the Civil War IF the Armed Services sided with the government. That's not necessarily a foregone conclusion.

And how exactly is this 2nd American revolution going to start?

Who will be pitted against who?

People who talk about "second American revolution" seem to be ignoring a lot of facts on the ground. We have a military. We have a local, state, and federal police force. We have the FBI and secret service. Are they going to choose sides?

Is it going to be the people against the government and what exact people would that be?

The 99% are most certainly NOT the 99%. They are so small in numbers that were they to act violent, they'd get crushed and thrown in jail.

LEATHERNECK...... i'am with you on the 2nd admendment. got your back on this one.

SEMPER FI

DANNY P

RETIRED USMC

You are in jail...of course you or I should be strop searched.

All you wing nutz who think differently need to have your head examined.

This is for security of the jailers and staff. Go work in a jail if you feel otherwise

We have heard about "activist judges" for years as more and more conservative authoritarian justices were assigned to the bench. They don't care what liberties the rest of us must give up, how our democracy is bought and sold by corporations or any needs of common people.

Being conservative these days has nothing to do with personal autonomy. It is about protecting the chosen few and controlling the rest of the riff-raff. Especially female riff-raff.

Please quote the second amendment. The whole thing.

Tony BBB, couldn't of said it better myself.With the US Supreme Court the way it is.I'd say the Goonies took over!

Oh and um sk? That's strip, not strop.By the way what is a strop anyway?

It is strap with a British accent.

SCOTUS requires a more visceral education on the finer points of strip search.

Some will trade freedom for protection while others trade freedom for handouts.

No one gives up personal freedom for "handouts" in the United States. However, cases like this CLEARLY show that we do in fact give up personal freedom for "protection". Such a false equivalence.

What protection?! Minor offenses? Now the Cindy Crawfords can be strip searched for jaywalking. Heaven for law enforcement, hell for everyone else.

If I were in law enforcement I would love to strip search Cindy Crawford, what a great time to be a cop.

Thank god you're not!

I'm not trying to be funny or conceited but this is the reason this concerns me personally. By normal standards, I would be considered a fairly attractive female. I work out and eat right. I take care of myself and others notice. This is the reason I refused to fly because who's to say that those TSA pervs don't target women like me just for jollies. Now I'm not even safe in my own d*mn car or anywhere for that matter? Does the Supreme Court really think that there is no chance of this being abused? The terrorists, whereever they are, must be quite proud of themselves now. They are slowly but surely getting exactly what they wanted. I USED to be a proud American.

A-Person, exactly my point, the situation is ripe for abuse, my apologies to gloria, I should have added (lol) to my comments to clarify my sarcasm.

A-person -

Evidence is accumulating that the supreme court judges really don't think much at all. One of them just compared the health insurance mandate to a mandate to eat broccoli. Obviously, this is a justice who needs all orifices probed with a thick, tough stalk of broccoli before he appears in public, just to ensure everyone's safety.

The conservative mandate: A. Entrenched Power is Correct. B. Corporations Must Be Free C. Individuals are Commodities, unless included in A.

My apologies to you Steve,I'm just a little ticked off about this whole stupid mess.The destruction of civil liberties,just makes me a little hair triggered.

I should of realized,again sorry!

Gloria, no need to apologize, like I said I should have given everyone a better clue on what I meant.

To A-Person, here's a link to your nightmare, evidently Bar Rafeli didn't take to kindly to a TSA pat down.

http://www.tmz.com/2012/04/17/bar-refaeli-tsa-agent-lesbian-patdown/