TSA --> TYJA?

[BT]

Conservative justices seem to know how to define reasonable vs not

Yes they modify the founders intent to match the changing times. Kinda like defining a living breathing document vs the static constitution that many conservatives advocate.

Tell me how roving roadblocks meet the terms of this amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


What is the probable cause for a roadblock?

[sirs]

Conservative justices seem to know how to define reasonable vs not

Yes they modify the founders intent to match the changing times.

No, they look at reasonable and define what is and isn't.  Kinda like black and white.  What is and isn't.  Merely being stopped is not unreasonable.  Nothing living about it.  But hey, if they rule on the TSA tactics and make a similar ruling, then you & Cu4 will be deemed right in their modifying the founders intent, and I will be wrong.  But if they go my way...

Ball in their court

[BT]

There is a difference between being stopped or pulled over for cause than a dragnet randomly set up to snare possible violators.

The conservative justices rationalized their decision by saying the inconvenience to the public for a 10 minute delay while the police check their papers does not outweigh the public good obtained by getting the drunk drivers off the road.

Now think about that for a minute.

They said the goals of the state are more important than the rights of the individual. And you agree with that?

[sirs]

Reasonable vs not.  As I said, we apparently have VERY different defintions of unreasonable.

I'll let the Conservative SCOTUS Justices demonstrate my point, when it crosses their desks.  Hopefully, it'll be soon

[BT]

Reasonable vs not.  As I said, we apparently have VERY different defintions of unreasonable.

I'll let the Conservative SCOTUS Justices demonstrate my point, when it crosses their desks.  Hopefully, it'll be soon

I'm sorry, did you answer my question, or simply deflect it.

Let me rephrase.

Do you believe it reasonable to place the interest of the state ahead of the personal liberties of the individual, as the conservatives justices in the case certainly did?

[sirs]

Since I don't agree with your premice, the question is moot.  As I said, we'll have to wait for the partcular justices to rule on TSA tactics, when it gets to their desks.  Then we'll see which one of us is right, in how we believe they're interpreting the Constitution.

[BT]

Since I don't agree with your premice, the question is moot.

If i don't agree with your posts, should i simply delete them?

[sirs]

It'd be quite the disappointment, but you're the boss.  I guess it would be consistent with the other recent disappointments I've noted and recorded here in the saloon.  Be sure to delete the ones that have the Conservative justices agreeing with me, on this one

[BT]

I didn't know any conservative justices were members of this forum, so perhaps you could show me where they agreed with you.

[sirs]

Apparently you missed the context of my comment.  I should have been a little clearer I suppose

[BT]

Be sure to delete the ones that have the Conservative justices agreeing with me, on this one

So which posts would those be.

[Christians4LessGvt]

"Do you believe it reasonable to place the interest
of the state ahead of the personal liberties of the individual"

SIRS why are you being so evasive?

Why not simply be honest and answer the questions without worry to whether it
damages an earlier stance you took?

Why not just admit the obvious ....

"yeah sometimes the interests of the state champion the personal liberties of the individual"

quit worrying soooo much about "gotcha"

[sirs]

Be sure to delete the ones that have the Conservative justices agreeing with me, on this one

So which posts would those be.

I realize you're purposely being obtuse now.  But to be even MORE clear, its in reference to WHEN the conservative justices agree with me, on this one, AFTER the TSA tactices have been brought to them for a ruling, THEN you can delete those posts

sheeeeeesh

[BT]

So the Conservative Justices have not agreed with you, up to this point. You are just certain that they will.

OK. You are just expressing confidence in your certitude.

[sirs]

I express confidence that they'll stick to the founding principles of the Constitution, as well as the continued ability to be able to define reasonable vs not, which is part of the Constitution.  4th amendment, in particular (which means, they've still been agreeing with me despite your best efforts to claim they haven't...thus the false premice to your earlier question)