Snowdon is a dummy

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

The conflicting ruling by two judges only proves one thing; one doesn't understand the Constitution. The wording is very clear; there must be cause and a warrant before they can intrude into any private communication.

Case studies have already determined what constitutes unlawful search and seizure. It's called "star dicisis" in legal terms.

Oh...a legal scholar...who can barely write coherently in English.

In any case, the SCOTUS has not ruled anything done here...illegal.

And they are the final say...not you, ci.

By the way, Scholar, "star dicisis" is hilarious!

0 Replies

@blatham,

Where in the hell do you live. I have known for years that all the .com outfits spy on us. Why do you think that when you search for something suddenly you have half a hundred sites pop up in your search engine pertaining to your search? And they store that information and I am sure sell it to anyone interested.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

No. If you think something is true you should use the I. We means all of us which cant be true.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

You know CI, you and Frank throw that we word around quite a lot. "I" dont necessarily always agree with either of you.

I will acknowledge that ci uses "we" and other generalizations like "most people"...where "I" would be much more appropriate...and "we" is inappropriate.

But you are suggesting that I do that also.

Could you give me an example of three times where I used "we" where "I" was appropriate, Rabel?

Should be a snap, since you say I throw it around quite a lot.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

No I wont Frank. I have already pointed out to you on one of these threads where you inappropriately used we and you ignored me. I'm not wasting my time looking for something you will ignore.

1 Reply

@Moment-in-Time,

Moment-in-Time wrote:

Personally, I do not expect you to understand me, CI. You have not done so yet!

Back on Yahoo, you and Olivier had all the low-IQ posters trained to play Igor to your Dr. Frankenstein.

Not going so smoothly here I see. You guys want me to go fetch Hammer? He'll be able to help you guys practice your discog if nothing else.

0 Replies

Just got a news alert:

"Julian Assange is expected to hold a news conference or make a statement at 4am ET after reports emerged that he would leave the Ecuadorian embassy in London"

To spare people from needing to make time zone calculations, "4am ET" is approximately 15 minutes from the time that I am making this post.

Clearly he is going to either confirm or deny the reports. We'll know which in a few minutes.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

No I wont Frank. I have already pointed out to you on one of these threads where you inappropriately used we and you ignored me. I'm not wasting my time looking for something you will ignore.

I do not remember that, Rabel...and I try very hard to stay away from generalizations of that sort. If I did make a mistake...I would easily and quickly own up to it...and even withdraw it.

But it is NOT something I do generally...or something I "throw around quite a lot."

I'd love to see the example you are suggesting exists.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

I'm going out on an unnecessary limb here and say that it is my belief based on nothing more than just a feeling, CI is simply comforted by feeling like he is in a group of like minded individuals against a few out of touch dissenters.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

I agree, sometimes I am a little puzzled by people being surprised at all these issues concerning privacy and the internet. I imagine security programs make a killing nowadays for all the good they do. As long as I can do what I want without some malicious bug interfering, I consider my program good enough and don't worry about the rest.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

German spying report angers Turkey, embarrasses Berlin

Targeting Turkey: How Germany Spies on Its Friends

In German media it is now speculated, what else Markus R. might have told resp. given to his US-contacts. (R. really was a low ranked and not important employee [not 'civil servant', for the differences see wikipedia here]. But obviously, important documents came on his desk ...)

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Like Rabel said, the constitution is interpreted a thousand different ways depending on majority political views in the SCOTUS. It's the way our country was set up and it means they have final legal say what the constitution says during that given time. So if at the end of the day SCOTUS rules the current national surveillance programs are not constitutional, then I can live with that, the government will live with that and change accordingly. However, if at the end of the day they either dismiss it all together which is possible or they rule in favor of NSA, then the government will go on as before and will be legally constitutional to keep doing regardless of opinions who say otherwise. This is the way the United States settles these sorts of issues and by and large it has served us pretty good. Where is better?

3 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

During the whole discussion over the weekend, I completely forgot about the Turkey side of the issue. They are an ally and a member of NATO, so I guess, even if the story is true, in the end, it don't make it better. I feel a bit sorry for the whole thing as it just adds more trouble than it is worth IMO. At first, I was just indulging in a little petty gotcha moments.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

As an aside: our Federal Constitutional Court enjoys more public trust than the federal or state parliaments, and is seen as a unique defender of the Grundgesetz ("Basic Law", our constitution). [It is regarded as one of the (or even the) most interventionist and powerful national courts in the world.]

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Can you list the 1000 different ways the Constitution is interpreted? Or any law, for that matter.

You probably don't understand the meaning of star decisis.

Quote:

Stare decisis (Anglo-Latin pronunciation: /ˈstɛəriː dɨˈsaɪsɨs/) is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedent established by prior decisions.

How you arrived at 1000 different interpretations is based on ignorance. Ask any attorney.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

OK. Still, I think ours is good. I wouldn't want to trade.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Can you list the 1000 different ways the Constitution is interpreted? Or any law, for that matter?

Just a figure of speech, don't get so technical. If the constitution don't get interpreted in different ways depending on political climate, then how do you explain different courts coming to different opinions about the same case? Right now we a conservative majority in Supreme Court, but I still don't know which way they will go. If Bush was in office, pretty sure they would lean towards the government position, with Obama in office, not sure. I hope they don't let that be a consideration, if they don't, pretty sure, the surveillance program will be found to be legal.

When we are airports, everybody is screened in some kind of way. People could call that invasion of privacy the same as collecting data information. Or in the case of rural counties and road blocks during the holidays, (don't know if they do it everywhere), they stop everybody who passes through that particular road block, you have to give them your license and in general they just check if you appear sober. No one goes on about unlawful search an seizure there. I don't see any difference in that and the government keeping data information on people searching for links for terrorist by means of certain words or whatever it is they do. If a more efficient way is found without the data collecting or whatever, then I am for it. I don't know why people have to make life so complicated.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

What happened to your 1000 interpretations? LOL

Quote:

Getting to Know the U.S. Court Systems
The United States court system is actually many court systems: a federal system and 50 state systems. Each has its own structures and procedures. All are multi-tiered. Legal cases begin in a lower court and sometimes work their way up to a higher court. Some cases initiated in a state court system ultimately end up in the federal court system.

Again on star decisis.

Quote:

DEFINITION
A Latin term meaning "to stand by that which is decided". Stare decisis is a legal principle which dictates that courts cannot disregard the standard. The court must uphold prior decisions. In essence, this legal principle dictates that once a law has been determined by the appellate court (which hears and determines appeals from the decisions of the trial courts) to be relevant to the facts of the case, future cases will follow the same principle of law if they involve considerably identical facts.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Quote:
Can you list the 1000 different ways the Constitution is interpreted? Or any law, for that matter?

Just a figure of speech, don't get so technical. If the constitution don't get interpreted in different ways depending on political climate, then how do you explain different courts coming to different opinions about the same case? Right now we a conservative majority in Supreme Court, but I still don't know which way they will go. If Bush was in office, pretty sure they would lean towards the government position, with Obama in office, not sure. I hope they don't let that be a consideration, if they don't, pretty sure, the surveillance program will be found to be legal.

When we are airports, everybody is screened in some kind of way. People could call that invasion of privacy the same as collecting data information. Or in the case of rural counties and road blocks during the holidays, (don't know if they do it everywhere), they stop everybody who passes through that particular road block, you have to give them your license and in general they just check if you appear sober. No one goes on about unlawful search an seizure there. I don't see any difference in that and the government keeping data information on people searching for links for terrorist by means of certain words or whatever it is they do. If a more efficient way is found without the data collecting or whatever, then I am for it. I don't know why people have to make life so complicated.

ci is a pathetic legal expert...which is to say, he is no expert at all.

You, by seconding Rabel's post, have pretty much hit the nail on its head.

The SCOTUS will determine the things ci is laughingly deciding here in this thread.

And I, like you, will abide by the decision no matter if I might disagree.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I don't know what you think that proves, I have already conceded 1000 interpretation was a figure of speech. However, just read the opinions behind a Justice's decision to vote a certain way in Supreme Court. They can pretty well find a case to suit their decision, they have people whose job it is to do just that.

1 Reply

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know