Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Stevens: 'Maybe You Have Some Kind of Constitutional Right to a Cell Phone...'
CNS News.com ^ | 10/16/2012 | Melanie Hunter

Posted on 10/17/2012 7:11:14 AM PDT by VRWCmember

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, speaking at an event hosted by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence’s Legal Action Project, said Monday said that having “some kind of constitutional right to a cell phone with a predialed 911 at your bedside might be better protection than a gun.”

“I’m not sure I actually have captured the entire question, but it does occur to me that one thing that I thought about from time to time is that maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cell phone with a predialed 911 number at your bedside, and that might provide you with a little better protection than a gun, which you’re not used to using,” Stevens said.

Jonathan Lowy, Brady Center Legal Action Project director, read a question from the audience, saying: “The Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment assures our right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense as you say. This question’s asked: ‘That protects only gun owners. What about those who don’t have guns? Surely they have a right of self-defense. Instead of relying on the 2nd Amendment and dealing with gun laws, wouldn’t it be more rational to rely directly on the right we all have to self-defense. What are your thoughts on that?’

Stevens was appointed to the high court in 1975 by President Gerald Ford. He retired in 2010. He is considered the third-longest serving justice.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; dial911anddie; electionsmatter; supremecourt; youwillnotdisarmus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next last
Just Wow! An incoherent and idiotic response to an incoherent and idiotic question.
1 posted on 10/17/2012 7:11:21 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

George Washington used ATT. Adams was a Verizon guy. Jefferson preferred sprint. It’s right there in the Constitution, just before the right to abortion.


2 posted on 10/17/2012 7:14:16 AM PDT by TruthShallSetYouFree (When the Obama poster fades, the portrait of Che Guevara beneath it shows through.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

I think mental retardation should be a disqualifier for SCOTUS


3 posted on 10/17/2012 7:14:33 AM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
Such an embarrassment.

Reflects badly on those who supported his elevation to the Supremes.

4 posted on 10/17/2012 7:14:44 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

Good Lord.


5 posted on 10/17/2012 7:15:13 AM PDT by Lazamataz (WAAAAAAAAAHHHhhhhh.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
link to story, click the video to hear both the question and the incoherent response.
6 posted on 10/17/2012 7:15:50 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

Yo, Judge!

You get a cell phone to work next to my bed, or ANYWHERE on my property and I’ll kiss your @$$.


7 posted on 10/17/2012 7:16:16 AM PDT by Roccus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

He’s been on the job too long... (or, good thing he’s retired).


8 posted on 10/17/2012 7:16:16 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, speaking at an event hosted by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence’s Legal Action Project, said Monday said that having “some kind of constitutional right to a cell phone with a predialed 911 at your bedside might be better protection than a gun.”

This Justice is some kind of moron.Imagine.Your in your bed sleeping.Someone breaks into your home and you awake to the sound of breaking glass.Now your going to protect your life by using a cell phone to call 911.

By the time the local Police Come you or your family would be dead.

Thanks Mr. Justice.I’ll stick to having a gun Nearby.


9 posted on 10/17/2012 7:17:34 AM PDT by puppypusher (The World is going to the dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

His physical and mental decline will be portrayed onscreen by Meryl Streep.


10 posted on 10/17/2012 7:17:37 AM PDT by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
The root of the problem with this question is the new fuzzy thinking with regard to 'rights'... the notion that the right to pursue a thing is the same as the right to the thing outright.

You have the right to own property... say for example, a house. That doesn't mean the country owes you a house.

Equal opportunity is not the same thing as equal outcomes. The first is a right; the second is not.

11 posted on 10/17/2012 7:17:50 AM PDT by Oberon (Big Brutha Be Watchin'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
Our SCOTUS is a disgrace. They are now pondering the question: should proof of citizenship be required to register to vote? This ‘august’ body shredded the Constitution with their ruling on Obamacare. The Bill would never have passed if the ‘mandate’ had been called a ‘tax’ originally. This SCOTUS changed the letter and the intent and didn't send the Law back for a re-vote. Does anyone think they care if non-citizens vote to sway our elections? Every one of them SWORE TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION! We are being destroyed from within! Stevens is not an aberration, his ‘overthinking’ of the Constitution seems to be the rule with the modern SCOTUS. Living, breathing Constitution my ***.
12 posted on 10/17/2012 7:21:20 AM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

What is the victim gonna do with a govt provided phone? Hit the attacker over the head with it? UGH


13 posted on 10/17/2012 7:21:28 AM PDT by smith288 (Peace at all costs gives you tyranny free of charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
‘That protects only gun owners. What about those who don’t have guns? Surely they have a right of self-defense. Instead of relying on the 2nd Amendment and dealing with gun laws, wouldn’t it be more rational to rely directly on the right we all have to self-defense. What are your thoughts on that?’
My thoughts on that? The idiot who wrote that question has not one clue what is meant by self-defense. The only way to exercise "the right we all have to self-defense" is to defend your own freaking self with whatever means you have at your disposal, dumbass! If you call 911 on your constitutionally guaranteed pre-dialed cell phone, you are depending on someone else miles away to defend you. By definition, that is NOT self-defense.
14 posted on 10/17/2012 7:21:42 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: puppypusher

“Stop! Or I’ll dial!!!”


15 posted on 10/17/2012 7:21:50 AM PDT by ObozoMustGo2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

“a predialed 911 at your bedside might be better protection than a gun.”

??

In order to what? Call someone to come over with a gun?

This election is as much about protecting us from idiocy as anything else.


16 posted on 10/17/2012 7:21:57 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

‘That protects only gun owners. What about those who don’t have guns? Surely they have a right of self-defense.”

Ummmm...get a gun? How hard is that? EVERYONE has the right to self defense...some simply choose to not excercise it. Tuff toenails.


17 posted on 10/17/2012 7:22:45 AM PDT by Adder (No Mo BO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

I frequently ask my Lib relatives (I no longer keep Lib friends), in your world, what ISN’T a RIGHT?


18 posted on 10/17/2012 7:23:40 AM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
The root of the problem with this question is the new fuzzy thinking with regard to 'rights'... the notion that the right to pursue a thing is the same as the right to the thing outright.

This concept was called out by Canadian Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin when she wrote this: "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care."

19 posted on 10/17/2012 7:23:54 AM PDT by Steely Tom (If the Constitution can be a living document, I guess a corporation can be a person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
You nailed it! Stevens moved steadily to the Left as a Justice. We should be thankful, I guess, that he finally retired, before he got to this point. On the other hand, had he staid on till now, we might have had an opportunity to do a lot better in his replacement.

William Flax

20 posted on 10/17/2012 7:23:54 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

So you have a right to a cell phone to call police. But you don’t have a right to protection by the police.


21 posted on 10/17/2012 7:25:18 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

Is Stevens’ saying it would be constitutional for the Supreme Court to ban ownership of cell phones?


22 posted on 10/17/2012 7:25:32 AM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

DOTARD, n. - A man whose intellect is impaired by age; one in his second childhood.


23 posted on 10/17/2012 7:26:31 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (DIY Bumper Sticker: "THREE TIMES,/ DEMOCRATS/ REJECTED GOD")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

All Americans have a Constitutional right to own a cell phone and they also have a Constitutional right to keep it wherever they want, including on the bedside table.

What Americans do NOT have is a Constitutional right to demand someone else pay for said cell phone.


24 posted on 10/17/2012 7:28:44 AM PDT by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
“I’m not sure I actually have captured the entire question, but it does occur to me that one thing that I thought about from time to time is that maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cell phone with a predialed 911 number at your bedside,
....and that might provide you with a little better protection than a gun, which you’re not used to using,” Stevens said.

******************

You have seconds to decide....

Seconds to act & protect your loved ones....
...Perhaps seconds to live...

And the 9-1-1 response is only minutes away...

Hizzoner needs a reality check...

25 posted on 10/17/2012 7:30:18 AM PDT by Wings-n-Wind (The main things are the plain things!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom
What I was really thinking is, you have the right to eat, for example. That doesn't mean somebody has the obligation to feed you.

You have the right to a weapon for use in self-defense. That doesn't mean that someone is obliged to give you that weapon.

26 posted on 10/17/2012 7:31:08 AM PDT by Oberon (Big Brutha Be Watchin'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

Duck and cover!
27 posted on 10/17/2012 7:32:06 AM PDT by ari-freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
..it does occur to me that one thing that I thought about from time to time is that maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cell phone with a predialed 911 number at your bedside, and that might provide you with a little better protection than a gun, which you’re not used to using,” Stevens said.

This is the sort of constitutional genius that Justice Stevens utilized in his egregious tenure on the SCOTUS. According to this, and every other liberal mind on the Court, if one cannot justify a position with the Constitution, make something up by semantic misdirection.

Does Justice Stevens feel safer with his Secret Service detail armed with only cell phones? I'll bet those agents in the Secret Service use their cell phones and communication devices much more often than they use their guns. Does that give them a better Constitutional right to protection by cell phone than to bear arms?

28 posted on 10/17/2012 7:32:37 AM PDT by Thommas (The snout of the camel is in the tent..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

My guns never have a dead battery, a weak signal, and work a lot faster than 911


29 posted on 10/17/2012 7:32:57 AM PDT by FrankR (They will become our ultimate masters the day we surrender the 2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
I guess his "briefs" were on too tight....maybe he should change to boxers?

Pun intended....hahahaha!

30 posted on 10/17/2012 7:34:40 AM PDT by thingumbob (I'm a bitter clinger...I dare you to take my gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

REALLY!!??

If I don’t want a cell phone, do I have a constiutional right to a conventional PHONE... like the one I have had all my life?

Will the government pick up the tab on that??

Because I would use IT, if I needed to make a 911 call!!??? Isn’t that the same thing?


31 posted on 10/17/2012 7:35:14 AM PDT by SMARTY ("The man who has no inner-life is a slave to his surroundings. "Henri Frederic Amiel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

I don’t ever want to hear about the Harvard, Yale, Princeton Law graduates being elitist thinkers. This is just the kind of shit-for-brains thinking has given the United States so many insane interpretations of the Constitution.


32 posted on 10/17/2012 7:37:04 AM PDT by Texas Songwriter (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMARTY
If I don’t want a cell phone, do I have a constiutional right to a conventional PHONE... like the one I have had all my life?

Good point, and with your land line, the 911 dispatcher can immediatly pinpoint your address so that the armed response is only a few minutes away - while a cell phone call will take several minutes for the signal to be triangulated and your location identified so the armed response will be several additional minutes away.

33 posted on 10/17/2012 7:40:13 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

This is Satire guys...


34 posted on 10/17/2012 7:43:20 AM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

The type of response you would expect from a man with government provided police protection.


35 posted on 10/17/2012 7:43:30 AM PDT by soupbone1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
So, every time I hear a noise in the middle of the night I should dial 911? Every time the stinkin cat or dog knocks something over, and it makes a noise, we should dial 911?
What idiots!!
36 posted on 10/17/2012 7:43:43 AM PDT by deweyfrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
Stevens may be on to something here. Perhaps EVERY American *does* have a constitutional right to own a cell phone...


37 posted on 10/17/2012 7:45:13 AM PDT by C210N ("ask not what the candidate can do for you, ask what you can do for the candidate" (Breitbart, 2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; wku man; SLB; ...
Holy God. If anyone had any doubts previously about how these leftist SCOTUS 'justices' just make it up as they go, you can toss those doubts out the window now. Just like this asshat is doing with The Constitution that he supposedly swore and oath to affirm and uphold.

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

38 posted on 10/17/2012 7:47:00 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C210N

I like that; except it wouldn’t be Nokia. Nokia’s north Texas plant fired all employees who obtained CHL permits, and used status as a CHL holder as a disqualification for hiring.


39 posted on 10/17/2012 7:49:59 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

The Average response time to a 911 call is 23 minutes.

The Average response time of a .357 Magnum is 1400 feet per second...


40 posted on 10/17/2012 7:51:25 AM PDT by desertfreedom765
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US
This is Satire guys...

if only that were true. CNS is not a satire news site. and watch the video in the link. This was a question and answer session after Stevens spock at a Brady Center event.

41 posted on 10/17/2012 7:53:07 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

Though very poorly stated, an argument could be made that there might be a constitutional right to “governmental emergency notification”, that is, to the *ability* to notify the government, in a timely manner, that you need help, as a form of free speech.

“The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one’s government, without fear of punishment or reprisals.”

And because government is, for most people, “far away”, and we now have an inexpensive and expeditious way of notifying government in emergencies, we have the “911” system, which many countries have adopted as a good idea.

So, what about a right to “emergency use only” cellphones for those who cannot afford their own telephone? (Right now, most commercial cell phones still retain a small reserve of battery power when they are depleted, which can only be used to call 911.)

While 911 operators *can* respond to ‘hang ups’, and other “no information” notifications, they much prefer, and can give a far better response, with voice information from callers. So just giving people an “emergency button” to push is far less practical than an emergency cell phone.

And those individuals who misuse the system can legitimately be denied its use as well.

Okay, a theory. Obviously one with some serious holes in it.

Importantly, this in *no* way diminishes the 2nd Amendment, and a cell phone is in no way an adequate substitute for defensive arms, for the simple reason that the *possibility* of government action, based on the right to petition the government, is not comparable to a citizens’ right to act themselves in a timely manner.


42 posted on 10/17/2012 7:55:58 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (DIY Bumper Sticker: "THREE TIMES,/ DEMOCRATS/ REJECTED GOD")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: puppypusher

Oh come on! You can throw the phone at them!!!! Duh!!!! LOL


43 posted on 10/17/2012 7:57:49 AM PDT by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: desertfreedom765

If there were a “Like” button, I would click it; instead I stole the comment and posted it on a Facebook post of this story.


44 posted on 10/17/2012 7:59:22 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
“[ . . . ]maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cell phone with a predialed 911 number at your bedside, and that might provide you with a little better protection than a gun, which you’re not used to using,” Stevens said.

The only people who are used to dialing 911 are poorly supervised juvenile delinquints and folks off their meds.
45 posted on 10/17/2012 8:05:32 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

“a cell phone with a predialed 911 at your bedside might be better protection than a gun.”

Yep, the police are minutes away when seconds count! I suppose it is true that mastermind utopians are not required to actually consider the results of their plans!


46 posted on 10/17/2012 8:07:45 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

This is what senile dementia looks like.


47 posted on 10/17/2012 8:08:43 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

Has he ever heard of SCOTUS Castle Rock v Gonzales which states citizens do not have a Constitutional right to police protection?


48 posted on 10/17/2012 8:08:56 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (Read SCOTUS Castle Rock vs Gonzales before dialing 911!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

Well of course we have a RIGHT to purchase a cell phone as the Constitution does not forbid it but of course the real question is do we have the right to force others to buy it for us and the answer is NO! There should never be a debate about that question.

We have the right to own firearms but not the right to force others to buy them for us.


49 posted on 10/17/2012 8:11:36 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

Ya gotta be kiddin’ me!

These people are infantilized. The number of logical errors in this piece led me to believe it was somebody’s idea of a joke. Every statement started, or at least ended ended with a false premise, or a non-sequiter.

Stevens may well be losing his mind.

It’s amusing, sort of, to note how far the left has been able to inculcate the notion of “rights” existing where the constitution is silent, however, where certain specific rights are spelled out as black letter law, they deny that, claim the intent was something else altogether, and that we mere mortals cannot possibly understand what the founding dads actually wrote and should rely on their interpretation.

While all the questions and assumptions were especially bad, the idea that the “right” to call 911 and expect “self-defense” from a third party, in this case police or sheriff, is a more direct expression of the 2nd Amendment takes a major league brand of stupid, and all the more so since SCOTUS has opined in a ruling that there is no specific right to police protection. Stevens has to know this.


50 posted on 10/17/2012 8:13:24 AM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson