Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is as dead as the Dodo Bird. It happened while you were sleeping America. Donald Sterling is a uber rich old white guy, who said some stuff that was, frankly, ugly and repugnant. Once upon a time in America, when we still had, not only a First Amendment, but a populace who understood what it meant, their was a saying. Thou I may disagree with what you say, I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it. Like the First Amendment, that sentiment is likewise as dead as the Dodo Bird. Killed by the Marxist concept of politically correct speech.
What are the wages of racism in the NBA, at least when it can’t be overlooked? TMZ heard it would be an indefinite suspension and a big fine, but the league had a tougher punishment in mind:
NBA commissioner Adam Silver has banned Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling for life for making racist remarks to his girlfriend on tape.
He also fined him $2.5 million, and encouraged the NBA Board of Governors to vote to terminate Sterling’s ownership — forcing him to sell the team.
All over something that he said in private. this is as unconstitutional and unAmerican as it is possible to get. Am I defending Sterling? Yes and No. No I absolutely am not defending his racists comments, they are utterly repugnant. But he absolutely does have the Constitutional Right to be as big a Racist as he wants to be. Well, let me correct that, IF the United States Constitution were even remotely still the Law of the Land, then he would have that Right. Sadly though, anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention knows that the United States Constitution is no longer in effect or even worth the paper it’s printed on.
WASHINGTON — Confronting a right-to-privacy question in the new world of smartphones, the Supreme Court justices sounded closely split Tuesday on whether police officers should be free to search through the phone of any person who is arrested.
Justice Elena Kagan, the newest and youngest member of the high court, urged her colleagues to insist on protecting privacy.
“People carry their entire lives on their cellphone,” she said during the argument involving a San Diego case. If there are no limits, a police officer could stop a motorist for not having seat belt buckled and download a huge amount of information, looking for some evidence of wrongdoing, she warned.
Such a search could include “every single email, all their bank records, all their medical records,” she said, as well as GPS data that would show everywhere they had traveled recently.
But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. pressed the opposite view. Police who make an arrest have always been permitted to check a wallet, a billfold or a purse, and that might include personal photos.
“What’s the difference if the photos are in a billfold or on smartphone?” he asked. The smartphone may include more, but “I don’t see there’s much difference,” he said.
Several justices said they faced a stark choice: either permit officers to search phones at the scene of every arrest, or require them to always obtain a search warrant from a magistrate before looking inside a phone, laptop computer or other digital device.
It was not clear during two hours of argument where the majority would line up.
In the case, a police officers stopped a car driven by David Riley because its license tag had expired. After discovering that Riley’s driver’s license was invalid, the officer found guns in the car. He then examined Riley’s smartphone and found evidence that the man was part of a gang that had carried out a drive-by shooting.
Riley was convicted of attempted murder and gang involvement, and the California courts upheld his conviction. The Supreme Court is considering whether the search of his smartphone violated the 4th Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches.
Stanford law professor Jeffrey Fisher, representing Riley, urged the justices to require officers to obtain a search warrant before examining a smartphone.
But California Solicitor General Edward DuMont said the justices should uphold the authority of police officers to check smartphones when they make an arrest.
Officers will not check phones when someone is stopped for a minor offense, like a seat belt violation, he said. If police make an arrest for a serious crime, they should be allowed check for evidence, including what is contained in the phone, he said.
While the Fourth Amendment could not possibly be more clear on this issue, the fsct is simply that the Fourth Amendment simply no longer exists and hasn’t for a very long time. It intrudes on the Governments ability to force citizens to comply with their will, you see.
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
It takes either a complete and total moron or an individual willfully intent on violating the Fourth Amendment not to recognize what is being said here. How in this modern technological day and age, a cell phone or laptop can not be seen as falling under the Fourth Amendments “Paper’s or Effects” protection?
The Answer is quiet simple, the United States Constitution keeps getting in the way of the Federal Government dictating every single aspect of American’s lives, so the Federal Government keep abrogating it. Obamacare proved that the First Amendment’s clause protecting the Free exercise of Religion no longer applies, This recent dust up over a private conversation of Donald Sterling proves that the or abridging the freedom of speech clause is also no longer in effect. The SCOTUS dithering whether to admit in public that the Fourth Amendment no longer hold any force.
Take a good hard look around you folks. Meh… Never mind, you’ve already drunk the Marxist kool-aid, like the fools at Jonestown who drank Jim Jones cyanide laced Kool-aid, you’re already dead and don’t even know it. So what if Sterling is fined 2.5 million dollars and banned for life from Basketball, he deserves it for being a racist. I mean, right?
First they came for the TEA Party, and I did not speak out– Because I was not TEA Party.
Then they came for the Racists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Racist.
Then they came for the Conservatives, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Conservative.
Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.