Since the men and women who serve as judges attended law school, the question must be asked what these law schools are teaching. Or perhaps a better question would be, “with what are these law schools indoctrinating their students?” Far too often we learn of judicial decisions that make no sense, and we’re not talking only of the bizarre decisions federal judges have made regarding President Trump’s travel ban.
The courts have power because the people respect them and the executive branches enforce their decisions. Take these away, and the courts just turn into editorial departments. Sometimes it seems like that is the direction they wish to take.
More on page two.
I can’t believe anyone can think the drug problem is more important than our rights. All the drug war is is a gateway to take all our rights away. If we are willing to give up rights over drugs imagine what we’ll give up over terrorism. This is where I completely disagree with conservatives.
They don’t care about the drugs they only care about what they can get through civil forfeiture via drug claims.
Imagine these kinds of laws with leftists in power to enforce them. They see a bible or a cross and you’ll be deemed an enemy combatant at some point.
That’s why it was called the war on drugs but fear it has been even more perverted
Are you kidding me bs
Liberals
Two things … the article doesn’t address whether the police actually found anything criminal on searching … triggering a challenge for warrantless search … secondly … if they found nothing … it supports the dissenting judges view that there is no case history and therefore violates the ‘probable’ part of the probable cause. Define ‘probable’ … to me that means better than a 50/50 chance … but many ‘don’t want to tie officers hands’ … and ‘if you haven’t done anything wrong, you’ve got nothing to hide’ mentality that erodes Constitutional protections.
Question .. If a 1% or 5% chance is reasonably ‘probable’ … wouldn’t ‘reasonable’ people forego most medicines because of the ‘probable’ dire side effects up to and including death per advertisements?
Two things … the article doesn’t address whether the police actually found anything criminal on searching … triggering a challenge for warrantless search … secondly … if they found nothing … it supports the dissenting judges view that there is no case history and therefore violates the ‘probable’ part of the probable cause. Define ‘probable’ … to me that means better than a 50/50 chance … but many ‘don’t want to tie officers hands’ … and ‘if you haven’t done anything wrong, you’ve got nothing to hide’ mentality that erodes Constitutional protections.
Question .. If a 1% or 5% chance is reasonably ‘probable’ … wouldn’t ‘reasonable’ people forego most medicines because of the ‘probable’ dire side effects up to and including death per advertisements?
Don’t try explain it to these brain dead idiots! After all, they elected Browback!
The communist police state continues to inch forward