Becky Akers demolishes Scalia on his Fourth Amendment remarks.
A Scallawag’s Circular Reasoning
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...lar-reasoning/
It’s always amusing — some might say infuriating — when a Gowned Clown muses on the evisceration of our freedom — an evisceration his court enthusiastically pursues. And so last “Thursday in an interview conducted at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg talked about their views of the First Amendment.” Which is rather like Janet Napolitano and Pillary Clinton’s discussing beefcake: you’re surprised they’ve even heard of it and certainly don’t want to hear their ruminations.
But I digress. “Moderator Marvin Kalb questioned Scalia about whether the NSA wiretapping cloud be conceivably be in violation of the Constitution: Justice Antonin Scalia said, ‘No because it’s not absolute. As Ruth has said there are very few freedoms that are absolute.’” Ahem. Yet these are the unconscionable cretins determining how much liberty to allot the serfs. “Please, sir, may we have some more?”
Scallawag continued. “I mean your person is protected by the Fourth Amendment but as I pointed out when you board a plane someone can pass his hands all over your body that’s a terrible intrusion…”
Whoa! Hold it right there, Cowboy. “Someone can pass his hands all over our bodies” only because you Clowns specifically perverted the Fourth Amendment to allow it!!!!! Since the 1960s, courts have consistently ruled in favor of the State and against the Fourth Amendment on virtually every case regarding aviation’s security that’s crawled before their sorry bench. Quickly but surely, the courts turned passengers into prisoners and an absolute freedom from unreasonable search and seizure into one that depends on what “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (That’s a quote from Katz v. United States [1967], a seminal case about wiretapping a public phone that the Clowns have duly expanded to legalize virtually any assault Our Rulers launch against the Fourth.)
Scallawag resumes once more: ”…but given the danger that [the TSA's sexual molestation is] guarding against it’s not an unreasonable intrusion…” He’s here referring to another decision (United States v. Bell, U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, 1972) in which the Clowns declared that because they’re craven wimps, we’ll welcome groping from their jack-booted minions — though of course they didn’t phrase it like that: “When the risk is the jeopardy to hundreds of human lives and millions of dollars of property inherent in the pirating or blowing up of a large airplane, that danger alone meets the test of reasonableness.” Ergo, no one can possibly object to any of the TSA’s atrocities.
Ah, but gate-rape is an unreasonable intrusion, Scallawag. You and your fellow Clowns can claim it isn’t from now till Doomsday, but that doesn’t change reality.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by phill4paul
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us