Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

[Momentum57]

For how long? DO we wait until they start using your comments in a private conversation to remove your Fifth Amendments rights?

I believe you meant Fourth Amendment? The Fifth Amendment protects against being compelled be a witness against oneself. If a "private" conversation is recorded via a wiretap (phone or physical location) it will be entered into evidence provided the appropriate legal criteria has been met. This is not a violation against ones Fifth Amendment rights. If you meant Fourth Amendment therein lies the rub. Private conversations via what method of communications?

Which means that the judge of any criminal court will throw it out in a jiffy, and the NSA will be solely to blame for ruining the case against a criminal for screwing up the most important evidence. See how this works?

The point of the NSA program is not criminal prosecutions but intelligence value. There would be little value in release any of the information. The administration tacitly agrees with this in their decision to utilise targeted attacks via drones. The President has said in press conferences that he is the end user of this information clearly to be used in an executive fashion rather than an prosecution.

In theory that is great. But at the rate the government is ignoring the constitution, how long until they say the call was broadcast, therefore, not private?

Actually much of the NSA program falls outside constitutional limitations. The examination of "metadata" of compiled phone records is simply a pen register search as outlined in Smith v. Maryland (1979). Furthermore NSA programs concerning phones of non-US citizens are entirely within their remit. The reasonable expectation of privacy does not extend to much of internet communications that people claim.

Being both are creations of Congress wouldn't both the secrete courts and the Federal courts be on equal footing? Only the Supreme Court could overrule them.

How do you mean? ?They have different jurisdictions and different jobs. ?There is also nothing preventing one from overruling the other. ?Courts disagree on precedent all the time.

Congress created the federal court system with a hierarchy. Hence you have cases go up to higher courts (the Supreme Court is a different beast and can choose any case it wants to hear). I admit I am unaware of where this court fits on that hierarchy.

True a party in standing could bring a claim to the Supreme court. That said it is unlikely that any party would bring claim as it is unlikely that NSA information would be released unless a criminal case was brought and NSA information entered into evidence unlikely because of the aforementioned reasoning. The idea that one could oppose an ex-parte court warrant predicated on probable cause that cannot be released post action is fundamentally flawed if not woefully esoteric. The middle ground of this would be a "pars umbra" or "shadow party" if you will as we are an adversarial system to prove a defence against the government warrant application. Ex-party warrants are understandable because the true party obvious can not be alerted to the surveillance the pars umbra would have security clearance and would stand in for the party and be available to the party should the surveillance information be used in further legal dispute.

 

[SpitfireMK461]

The point of the NSA program is not criminal prosecutions but intelligence value. There would be little value in release any of the information. The administration tacitly agrees with this in their decision to utilise targeted attacks via drones. The President has said in press conferences that he is the end user of this information clearly to be used in an executive fashion rather than an prosecution.

That's sort of my point. Beyond the information being only of intelligence value, there would be a great risk in trying to use the information for a criminal proceeding as it doesn't fall within the typical idea of a specific warrant to gather evidence.

The reasonable expectation of privacy does not extend to much of internet communications that people claim.

Can you show a case regarding this. I just took a class discussing this very topic and the idea that internet communications aren't under a reasonable expectation of privacy was never brought up, nor can I imagine how that idea would be supported.

 

[GRtak]

A former teacher that is now a congress critter grades Boehner's letter. Lmao

http://repmarktakano.tumblr.com/post/55171410836/a-draft-letter-by-republican-members-to-speaker

 

[Blind_Io]

Why the hell is Texas confiscating tampons, maxipads and diabetic supplies from observers trying to get into the senate floor?

 

[Spectre]

Why the hell is Texas confiscating tampons, maxipads and diabetic supplies from observers trying to get into the senate floor?

Because a number of groups have threatened to throw things at members in the floor during this session. They have also confiscated several jars of feces and urine.

 

[SpitfireMK461]

Because a number of groups have threatened to throw things at members in the floor during this session. They have also confiscated several jars of feces and urine.

But not guns. Tampons are far more dangerous.

 

[Spectre]

But not guns. Tampons are far more dangerous.

It should be pointed out that several of your own party members are supporting the confiscation. Seems they don't want to be pelted with feminine hygiene products, used or unused, either. Yes, groups have said they will throw such items (again, used and unused) at legislators. And if you don't think a used one of those is a big problem, you need to review your knowledge of human-transmissible pathogens.

Firearms are allowed in only with a licensed carrier - and many of our legislators are armed on the floor. Would you prefer that the protestors be shot for their assault instead of having the means taken away from them?

 

[narf]

I move for tampon-throwing (unused) to be protected free speech.

 

[Spectre]

I move for tampon-throwing (unused) to be protected free speech.

When you throw something at a person, it's called throwing a missile and has long been illegal in Texas as part of the laws against assault. Also, the confiscation didn't start until the protestors declared their intent to use the items as weapons/projectiles. Nobody had a problem if they had, say, sat in the gallery and just waved the items (or even if they got naked in the gallery, as some did) but once you threaten to use them as projectiles and start bringing them in along with jars of feces, jars of urine and bricks, guess what's going to happen?

I'd also point out that the persons bringing such items are not having them seized in classic jackboot style - they are told that they can keep the items but they will not be allowed into the Senate gallery with them. It is their choice to discard/surrender said items then continue on to the gallery or retain them and leave. It is only if they try to continue on with those items in their possession that they will be forcibly prevented from entry and the items removed.

 

[narf]

If they're weapons then 2nd instead of 1st

 

[GRtak]

Why is it you think Texas(s) is so great again? Why is it that men in the government there seek to take rights/freedoms away from women? Why is it the republicans in particular in this country are for mandatory pregnancy?

And Perry thinks "The louder they scream" the more right he is. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2...ies-mansplaining-abortion-to-wendy-davis?lite

 

[Spectre]

If they're weapons then 2nd instead of 1st

Then it's unlawful carriage of a weapon.

 

[SpitfireMK461]

It should be pointed out that several of your own party members are supporting the confiscation.

It's not my party. I don't live in Texas.

 

[Spectre]

Why is it you think Texas(s) is so great again? Why is it that men in the government there seek to take rights/freedoms away from women? Why is it the republicans in particular in this country are for mandatory pregnancy?

And Perry thinks "The louder they scream" the more right he is. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2...ies-mansplaining-abortion-to-wendy-davis?lite

Many of the women are supporting this as well, so no 'it's the men! it's the men!' cries, please.

First of all, there's nothing in the bill that prevents men and women from buying or using contraception in the first place, or using the Day After/Plan B pills. Or receiving any of the other common abortion methods in use up to 5 months after conception. So much for mandatory pregnancy, pretty sure 5 months is more than enough for people with a clue to realize there's a kid coming. Which, by the way, is the same restriction that thirteen other states including a number of blue ones already have.

Second, there have been a number of recent incidents where women in Texas and other states have died because of legal abortion providers not knowing enough (or just not caring) when complications occur, and then not admitting their patients to the hospital for hours and hours after complications appear because they don't have admitting privileges. Such as the case of Tonya Reaves of Chicago, who was left to suffer and bleed for almost two hours after her procedure before 911 was finally called - note that she wasn't immediately taken to the hospital once it became apparent there were problems. And let's not forget Kermit Gosnell, an abortion specialist doctor whose absolute horror of a clinic killed at least one woman who he wouldn't send to the hospital because (among other reasons) he didn't have admitting privileges. All the bill does is require certain minimum medical standards be met by abortion clinics for the protection of the women who choose to use them. Similar medical standards must be met by many other medical specialties, such as orthopedists who do in-office procedures, it should be noted.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not my party. I don't live in Texas.

Last I checked, you were a Democrat and so were they.


Edit: I also find it highly amusing that liberals are adamant about banning rifles that are used in less than 1% of crime but absolutely freak out about banning just 1.5% of abortions. The same abortions that are already illegal as hell in 'more progressive thinking' Europe; most European countries ban abortions after just 18 weeks, IIRC.

 

[SpitfireMK461]

Last I checked, you were a Democrat and so were they.

As elected officials in the Texas State Legislature, they are representatives of the Texas Democratic Party, which I have no affiliation with. Furthermore, I have never voted for any member of the Texas Legislature, nor have I ever voiced support for any action by anyone in the Texas Legislature. As a result, they have nothing to do with me.

So please, stop trying to discredit people purely on their political leanings. Stick to the actual issues.

 

[Spectre]

As elected officials in the Texas State Legislature, they are representatives of the Texas Democratic Party, which I have no affiliation with. Furthermore, I have never voted for any member of the Texas Legislature, nor have I ever voiced support for any action by anyone in the Texas Legislature. As a result, they have nothing to do with me.

So please, stop trying to discredit people purely on their political leanings. Stick to the actual issues.

Interesting semantics. If you are a member of a state Democratic party, you are also a member of the national party, by the way (with some exceptions for things like midwest Farmer-Labor parties.) But I'm just returning the favor in referring to Democrats as being all the same as you and others like GRTak have referred to Republicans and others. Case in point, just look up a couple of posts:

Why is it the republicans in particular in this country are for mandatory pregnancy?

 

[narf]

Then it's unlawful carriage of a weapon.

I'd call it big government going after average people's weapons.

 

[Spectre]

I'd call it big government going after average people's weapons.

Licensed carriers may bring a firearm into the capital and even onto the floor of a legislative body but due to Democrat-promulgated regulation from the past, you may not bring a club, sword, knife with a blade over 5.25 inches or a double edge, brass knuckles or *any other weapon* into the capital or a session of the legislature. Dates back to at least 1976, when Texas was staunchly blue. The firearm exemption is quite recent.

 

[SpitfireMK461]

Interesting semantics. If you are a member of a state Democratic party, you are also a member of the national party, by the way (with some exceptions for things like midwest Farmer-Labor parties.) But I'm just returning the favor in referring to Democrats as being all the same as you and others like GRTak have referred to Republicans and others. Case in point, just look up a couple of posts:

Oh, so when GRtak makes a post, I'm affiliated with it? How does that work?

And being part of the national party does not make me a part of the Texas Democratic Party. Either way, what does it matter? I've never said I support any of these people. You might as well be saying I'm affiliated with them because I'm an American (as are you) or because I'm a human (as are you). What the hell is your point?

 

[narf]

Licensed carriers may bring a firearm into the capital and even onto the floor of a legislative body but due to Democrat-promulgated regulation from the past, you may not bring a club, sword, knife with a blade over 5.25 inches or a double edge, brass knuckles or *any other weapon* into the capital or a session of the legislature. Dates back to at least 1976, when Texas was staunchly blue. The firearm exemption is quite recent.

Take a firearm that fires tampons then.