DriftBusta Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 50 minutes ago, f7ben said: I read his decisions on the 4th amendment. Hes garbage and you're a fucking retard Yeah you’re quite the learned scholar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted July 10, 2018 Author Share Posted July 10, 2018 19 minutes ago, DriftBusta said: Yeah you’re quite the learned scholar. Read his argument....its pure shit Basically he says if your personal effects and property are in the possession of a 3rd party they are fair game to be taken by the government without warrant. Youd have to be brain dead to agree with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted July 10, 2018 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, f7ben said: Read his argument....its pure shit Basically he says if your personal effects and property are in the possession of a 3rd party they are fair game to be taken by the government without warrant. Youd have to be brain dead to agree with that. No doubt a slippery slope on that one. Unfortunately third parties share our information all the time. I would guess there are disclaimers in the fine print but I doubt it happens in every situation. Brings up a case not too far from me. A guy who coaches kids is getting work done on his house. Contractors who happen to be relatives to the coach find a jump drive hidden in a wall or something. Take it and find pictures of kids on it. Turn it over to police. He's arrested and investigated further where they find more illegal pictures of kids. Because it wasn't law enforcement who confiscated the evidence it so far is standing up in court. Edited July 10, 2018 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted July 10, 2018 Author Share Posted July 10, 2018 33 minutes ago, Highmark said: No doubt a slippery slope on that one. Unfortunately third parties share our information all the time. I would guess there are disclaimers in the fine print but I doubt it happens in every situation. Brings up a case not too far from me. A guy who coaches kids is getting work done on his house. Contractors who happen to be relatives to the coach find a jump drive hidden in a wall or something. Take it and find pictures of kids on it. Turn it over to police. He's arrested and investigated further where they find more illegal pictures of kids. Because it wasn't law enforcement who confiscated the evidence it so far is standing up in court. There was no reason aside from biased agenda to write that decision. It was a skewed interpretation and the ramifications are the outright destruction of your right to be free from illegal search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted July 10, 2018 Author Share Posted July 10, 2018 I guess we'll see if Rand is a worthless liar or not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted July 10, 2018 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, f7ben said: There was no reason aside from biased agenda to write that decision. It was a skewed interpretation and the ramifications are the outright destruction of your right to be free from illegal search. I'm not saying I agree with the decision I just see some grey area as far as third party holding information. Where it should be clear is the govt's access to it needing specific warrants. Doubt we will ever stop 3rd parties collecting information on us because now information is a product to make money off of. Should the govt have access to mental health files without permission in order to obtain a gun? I say no. There is tons of information that the public can see on each other that I don't really agree with but its been found constitutional or maybe its just never been fought. Edited July 10, 2018 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 12 hours ago, Rod Johnson said: The pre planned protest is In full force. Liberals donning professionally made signs, Pocahontas reading a pre made speech. Who’s paying for all this? I just saw this. They don't care if the guy is good or bad only that he was nominated by Trump and they are just doing what they are paid or told to do....that is what is pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 1 minute ago, racer254 said: I just saw this. They don't care if the guy is good or bad only that he was nominated by Trump and they are just doing what they are paid or told to do....that is what is pathetic. Trump should change his mind today just to throw everybody off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Nazipigdog said: Trump should change his mind today just to throw everybody off. Well, No matter what trump does, someone will be "outraged" And then we will see another post on here about that outrage. Edited July 10, 2018 by racer254 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 19 minutes ago, racer254 said: I just saw this. They don't care if the guy is good or bad only that he was nominated by Trump and they are just doing what they are paid or told to do....that is what is pathetic. I think Trump should have nominated Merrick Garland. This would have extended an olive branch to his opponents and helped to re-unite the country. But he has no interest in re-uniting the country, only bragging that he and his supporters have more money and better boats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 16 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said: I think Trump should have nominated Merrick Garland. This would have extended an olive branch to his opponents and helped to re-unite the country. But he has no interest in re-uniting the country, only bragging that he and his supporters have more money and better boats. Well, sorry but nominating a previous Obama nominee is not what his supporters want. Everyone knows that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted July 10, 2018 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said: I think Trump should have nominated Merrick Garland. This would have extended an olive branch to his opponents and helped to re-unite the country. But he has no interest in re-uniting the country, only bragging that he and his supporters have more money and better boats. Every time I hear this it cracks me up. Olive branch. You don't honestly think anyone against Trump would have changed a thing if he did that? Edited July 10, 2018 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) 1 minute ago, Highmark said: Every time I hear this it cracks me up. Olive branch. Yeah, Olive branch. NOPE. In only ever gets brought up by liberals when liberals are NOT in a position of power. Edited July 10, 2018 by racer254 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted July 10, 2018 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted July 10, 2018 Just now, racer254 said: Yeah, Olive branch. NOPE. In only ever gets brought up by liberals when liberals are NOT in a position of power. I think it would have been priceless for him to put Garland on the short list, even interview him only to know there was zero chance at him getting picked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted July 10, 2018 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted July 10, 2018 1 hour ago, f7ben said: Read his argument....its pure shit Basically he says if your personal effects and property are in the possession of a 3rd party they are fair game to be taken by the government without warrant. Youd have to be brain dead to agree with that. Pfffttttt....you expect him to read what now....If Trump nominated him then that’s good enough!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted July 10, 2018 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted July 10, 2018 Guys who claim to not want the govt to have personal information but yet want them to control all of healthcare and know everything about you. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DriftBusta Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 1 hour ago, f7ben said: Read his argument....its pure shit Basically he says if your personal effects and property are in the possession of a 3rd party they are fair game to be taken by the government without warrant. Youd have to be brain dead to agree with that. Except he’s a Harvard educated constutionalist scholar and jurist, and you’re an unlicensed electrician, getting yourself in a lather over his appointment. I think it’s pretty obvious who’s acting like a brain dead retard. Particularly when there ain’t a fucking thing you or anyone else is gonna do about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DriftBusta Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 6 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said: Pfffttttt....you expect him to read what now....If Trump nominated him then that’s good enough!!!!!!!! I’m sure you read it too, send me the link anklebiter.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted July 10, 2018 Author Share Posted July 10, 2018 Just now, DriftBusta said: Except he’s a Harvard educated constutionalist scholar and jurist, and you’re an unlicensed electrician, getting yourself in a lather over his appointment. I think it’s pretty obvious who’s acting like a brain dead retard. Particularly when there ain’t a fucking thing you or anyone else is gonna do about it. Obama was a Harvard educated constitutional scholar as well and you being a donut delivery man had very little latitude to spend 8 years questioning his every step.....but yet there you were and here we are Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) He's a Yale graduate, and TEACHES at Harvard. He has written 300 rulings. Trump WON the AMERICAN election. To the victor goes the spoils. It's Trump's call to choose a conservative candidate. If you don't like it, then next time campaign for and contribute to a Democrat. Edited July 10, 2018 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 38 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said: I think Trump should have nominated Merrick Garland. This would have extended an olive branch to his opponents and helped to re-unite the country. But he has no interest in re-uniting the country, only bragging that he and his supporters have more money and better boats. Lol yah ok... 1 hour ago, f7ben said: I guess we'll see if Rand is a worthless liar or not He’ll step in line. No doubt. He will make a big stink, get something in return, and vote the way he’s told. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DriftBusta Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Just now, f7ben said: Obama was a Harvard educated constitutional scholar as well and you being a donut delivery man had very little latitude to spend 8 years questioning his every step.....but yet there you were and here we are I don’t get into legal arguments with legal scholars that’s your deal. Or at least arguments in your brain on an obscure snowmobile forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted July 10, 2018 Author Share Posted July 10, 2018 1 minute ago, DriftBusta said: I don’t get into legal arguments with legal scholars that’s your deal. Or at least arguments in your brain on an obscure snowmobile forum. I'm just siding with the ACLU and Privacy rights advocacy groups.....is that ok with you seeing as how I'm apparently unfit to form my own opinions on the rights I was granted constitutionally? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry ginger Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 1 hour ago, f7ben said: There was no reason aside from biased agenda to write that decision. It was a skewed interpretation and the ramifications are the outright destruction of your right to be free from illegal search. Ben the constitutional scholar SMH Guys a swamp creature but the usual suspects will just ignore that. As far as qualified honestly he seems pretty well qualified and should sail through but Garland should have as well before politics took priority over qualifications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 1 minute ago, Angry ginger said: Ben the constitutional scholar SMH Guys a swamp creature but the usual suspects will just ignore that. As far as qualified honestly he seems pretty well qualified and should sail through but Garland should have as well before politics took priority over qualifications. Of course he is a swamp beast. Throwing a bone to the establishment in a big way is smart for Trump. They love this call. Keeps them in line for the Trump agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.