Randi Rhodes Forums

I just heard Randi talk about this. WOW!! Unfreakinbelievable!

http://newsone.com/nation/associatedpre ... ip-search/

Seems those five conservative activist judges always side with either law enforcement or the corporations when it comes to law suits.

Dear God, of course it is an African American they just had to fucking search, I mean he looks so dangerous...where is that krazed san francisco beach poster again!

jesus fucking

K R I S T



i dont have the words, but i know someone here who will

I laughed at first because you cant write this shit, these fucking nazi bastard fucks on the supreme court, sorry for calling them nazis but i dont know what else to call them

The Reich Wing of this country is not going to be happy until we are the dystopia reflected in "A Handmaiden's Tale"....

Crickette

And this is the court you expect to uphold Obamacare? Even conservative lawyers from the Reagan era are concerned about the conservative activist judges.

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-cou ... 5000.story

"Fried had confidently predicted the law would be easily upheld. He said he was taken aback by the tone of the arguments. "The vehemence they displayed was totally inappropriate. They seemed to adopt the tea party slogans," he said.

Pepperdine law professor Douglas W. Kmiec, another top Justice Department lawyer under Reagan, said he hoped the justices would "come to their senses" and uphold the law as a reasonable regulation of interstate commerce.

Among younger conservatives, Fried and Kmiec have their detractors because they endorsed Obama during the 2008 campaign. But they are not alone among Reagan-era lawyers who continue to emphasize judicial restraint.

In November, Judge Laurence H. Silberman, a Reagan appointee to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington and long a leader of the conservative legal movement, wrote an opinion upholding the healthcare law on the grounds that Congress has the power "to forge national solutions to national problems.""

Hi! It's The Handmaid's Tale and we're already there.

IMO, we're right back to where we were under King George III. Why the hell did we even bother to have a revolution? We would have ultimately been better off as a British Commonwealth.

Calling out the President for a high noon showdown?!! What absurd grandstanding! Obama was right to calmly and carefully point out precedent to a supreme court who seems to think it's okay to overturn established laws, even if they answer a question not asked such as in the case of Citizens United, or stepping into an election and stopping vote counting because it would harm George W Bush. And now the new Strip Search guidelines, that look tailor made to discourage protesters of the occupy persuasion. Next they are about to upturn the Affordable Care Act, all the wile palling around with the power makers on the right! They are the ethically challenged un-elected deciders of our future! my latest toon is about this latest erosion of our civil liberties.
www.whatnowtoons.com
Left of Center Independent Political Cartoons

IMO, it's less about law enforcement than it is about some repressed right-wing sexual deviation.

Remember what happened in Abu Ghraib?

Right-wingers have amply demonstrated that they have abnormal sexual deviation and this has got to be simply more of the same. They just want to satisfy their buggery little lusts.

The worry I have is that they will go completely rabid and start stripping/molesting children.

Which is why this message needs to hit the streets BEFORE all those precious children start bending over to pick up Easter Eggs....Tell 'Em to SQUAT instead...Make the RePigs deal with Spring all sexually frustrated and no stolen candy to boot!!! (sick, greedy bastards...)

Crickette

You just never really tire of this tripe, do you?

Anyway, to the point, I remain agog and astounded by Kennedy's moronic, truly stupefying analogy about the arrest of Timothy McVeigh - initially for a minor infraction - somehow "proving" that every minor arrest just might be of a major, deadly terrorist, and so strip-searching prisoners INCLUDING THOSE KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN PICKED UP BY MISTAKE - is reasonable.

It's Cheney's infamous "If there's a 1% chance..." policy codified by the SCOTUS. Mind-blowing. And from KENNEDY, no less?

And these 5 are the fucks who claim THEY alone stand for civil liberties and what our founders wanted. Just mind-blowing.

Yes. I agree. ANyone who is put behind the bars, gets a strip search before they get put behind the bars.

I take it you agree with the Supreme Court decision, based on what you said, and not the cartoon I just posted.

Just clarifying as your sentence lacked an obvious referent.

Based on your last statement: so anyone under arrest for any reason gets a strip search? Excessive speeding? Unpaid parking tickets and fines? Littering and jaywalking?

I hear the 4th amendment being ripped to shreds -- not like this is the first way.

Hold up now... I said put behind bars... not arrested. Just because a person is arrested it does NOT mean they go behind bars or put in a cell. But if they are disruptive enough to warrant further action aka being put in a jail cell, then YES, strip search them.

For all the arrestable offenses I just mentioned, unless you receive bail, you can be held in a jail cell until your trial. Whether or not you serve jail time as part of your sentence for being found guilty. So, they all go behind bars at least for some time ... they all get a strip search?

Seems excessive to me, and Justice Breyer seems to have agreed in his dissent.