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

Skip to comments.

JUSTICE SCALIA: 'FOOLISH' TO HAVE THE SUPREME COURT DECIDE IF NSA WIRETAPPING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Breitbart.tv ^ | 4/19/2014 | Pam Key

Posted on 04/19/2014 2:49:04 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan

Thursday in an interview conducted at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg talked about their views of the First Amendment. Moderator Marvin Kalb questioned Scalia about whether the NSA wiretapping cloud be conceivably be in violation of the Constitution:

Justice Antonin Scalia said, "No because it's not absolute. As Ruth has said there are very few freedoms that are absolute. I mean your person is protected by the Fourth Amendment but as I pointed out when you board a plane someone can pass his hands all over your body that's a terrible intrusion, but given the danger that it's guarding against it's not an unreasonable intrusion. And it can be the same thing with acquiring this data that is regarded as effects. That's why I say its foolish to have us make the decision because I don't know how serious the danger is in this NSA stuff, I really don't."

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: antoninscalia; constitution; demagogicparty; marvinkalb; memebuilding; nsa; nsascandals; partisanmediashill; partisanmediashills; ruthbaderginsburg; scalia; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 next last

1 posted on 04/19/2014 2:49:05 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; Salvation; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

2 posted on 04/19/2014 2:50:42 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Gotta say, Judge, I am disappointed in this.


3 posted on 04/19/2014 2:52:39 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I’m in a small minority that thinks the Supreme Court is ill equipped to make any decisions.


4 posted on 04/19/2014 2:54:09 PM PDT by Baynative (Got bulbs? Check my profile page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Part of the solution or part of the problem? Pretty clear he is part of the problem.


5 posted on 04/19/2014 2:54:33 PM PDT by Rodentking (There is no God but Yahweh and Moses is his prophet - http://www.airpower.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

“it’s not an unreasonable intrusion.”

It is funny that 99% of Free Republic was cheering for Patriot Act back then, calling libtards as anti-Americans for not going with the fed gubmint schemes.


6 posted on 04/19/2014 2:59:07 PM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
As someone who never went to law school, I don't think it takes a J.D. to notice that the Fourth Amendment only disallows "unreasonable searches and seizures," while the First Amendment says categorically that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Whether a TSA pat-down is a "reasonable search" is a matter of law, but there is no Constitutionally-protected Federal law restricting "the freedom of speech."

P.S. I know "the freedom of speech" is specifically referring to a compact between individuals and society, based on the writings of Locke and Blackstone among others, a "deal" that society would protect the freedom of individuals to state that which they believed to be true based on evidence and reason, and that individuals in return would only state that which they had reason to believe to be true and which protected the life, liberty, and property of others--that is why libel and slander are not protected by the First Amendment. Nevertheless, the Fourth Amendment protection is against "unreasonable search and seizure," while the First Amendment protection is much closer to absolute, as close as possible without turning the Constitution into a suicide pact.

7 posted on 04/19/2014 2:59:08 PM PDT by chajin ("There is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

And he is supposed to be one of the few on our side... God help us!


8 posted on 04/19/2014 3:00:32 PM PDT by Blue Highway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
"I don't know how serious the danger is in this NSA stuff, I really don't."

His imagination is dead.

9 posted on 04/19/2014 3:02:03 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chajin

What does not infringe mean?


10 posted on 04/19/2014 3:03:31 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Because SCOTUS doesn’t do that anymore??


11 posted on 04/19/2014 3:07:06 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Well...the constitution formed the SCOTUS, and it can undo it.


12 posted on 04/19/2014 3:07:44 PM PDT by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Time to flush the SC toilet. If Scalia can’t figure out what’s intrusive to our freedoms, he needs to take a remedial course in Constitutional law. He best do it quick before we send the 101st Airborne to sort out the traitors from the patriots at the NSA.


13 posted on 04/19/2014 3:08:51 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blue Highway

The SC is part of the elite. They were appointed by the elite and approved by the elite. We the people are peasants who are allowed to survive to do their bidding.


14 posted on 04/19/2014 3:10:26 PM PDT by VerySadAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
What does not infringe mean?"

"As a political gesture to the Anti-Federalists, a gesture highlighted by the Second Amendment's prefatory reference to the value of a well-regulated militia, express recognition of the right to arms was something of a sop. But the provision was easily accepted because everyone agreed that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."
- "To Keep and Bear Arms"

15 posted on 04/19/2014 3:11:32 PM PDT by chajin ("There is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Yeah. Scalia is a friend of America and the Right. *major eyeroll*


16 posted on 04/19/2014 3:14:13 PM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blue Highway

I said the same thing years ago, when Scalia was stating that the State’s could actually decide if “abortion” was allowed or not. The State had the “Right” to vote away the “Right to Life” of other human beings-—where science KNEW babies were individual, separate human beings, from the mother.

Something is terribly WRONG, when Reason and Logic is removed from words and language and WORDS aren’t absolute. The Founders meant specific provable things by language, which is being twisted and made irrational.

The Constitution’s embedded Natural Rights from God ARE absolute. Don’t know what Scalia “thinks” unalienable means. Our Rights come from God and we don’t NEED the State to give us PERMISSION-—which is what this Socialist State is doing.....which is in violation of our Natural Rights, which precede the Constitution and are “unalienable”. (Definition: IMPOSSIBLE to take away or give away). That is as “absolute” as it gets.

Such evil Marxist “progressive” “thinking” which throws out Logic. Justice Thomas is the Natural Law Theory expert, so I have been told. It is the Lockean philsophy, which undergirds everything in our Constitution. They are replacing Locke with Marx INTENTIONALLY.


17 posted on 04/19/2014 3:15:54 PM PDT by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sagar

I don’t have an issue with the NSA spying on anyone outside of the United States. They have no business spying on American citizens on U.S. soil.

And before anyone jumps on me about naturalized terrorists, I don’t think we should be naturalizing anyone who abides by Sharia law. Racist? Yeah, and? Know any other religions whose adherents want to kill us?


18 posted on 04/19/2014 3:19:07 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; All
Although I empathize that Justice Scalia is trying to prevent more unnecessary deaths, Harvard Law School-indoctrinated Justice Scalia is effectively wrongly amending the Constitution from the bench concerning 4th Amendment protections imo. The Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution narrowly to give the sleeping states a "kick" to amend the Constitution to more reasonably address today's terrorists.

Regarding how the Constitution should be interpreted, Thomas Jefferson had put it this way.

"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.

19 posted on 04/19/2014 3:24:37 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Yes, Scalia, has been a very good friend. When he hears proper arguments about the dangers of NSA spying on citizens, he’ll make the right decision.

He says he doesn’t know right now. I trust that’s because he is lacking specific information. When it’s brought to his attention, he’ll weigh it carefully.


20 posted on 04/19/2014 3:24:47 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sagar

“It is funny that 99% of Free Republic was cheering for Patriot Act back then, calling libtards as anti-Americans for not going with the fed gubmint schemes.”

There were many of us who opposed the so called Patriot Act on this forum. I think 99% is a bit high, but yes there were many Freepers who supported it.


21 posted on 04/19/2014 3:26:03 PM PDT by sean327 (God created all men equal, then some become Marines!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Sorry, Justice Scalia, but it’s a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.


22 posted on 04/19/2014 3:27:13 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

“I don’t have an issue with the NSA spying on anyone outside of the United States. They have no business spying on American citizens on U.S. soil.”

Think of it this way: the toilet has overflowed and shit has started flowing; here you are saying that the shit should not touch the carpet.


23 posted on 04/19/2014 3:28:51 PM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: chajin

There is nothing reasonable about the TSA or anything it does.


24 posted on 04/19/2014 3:30:47 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

Please remember that the Supreme Court has reversed more than 150 of earlier Supreme Court decisions on natural law. Is that what you would consider as someone being consistent and reliable in interpreting the Constitution?

“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, it’s meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted. it means now”. So said the Supreme Court in South Carolina v United States in 1905


25 posted on 04/19/2014 3:32:26 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sagar

I disagree with your analogy. The NSA has a duty to keep an eye on foreign interests who plot against us. We can’t prevent attacks on the homeland if we don’t know about them.

That duty does not outweigh the constitutional rights of American citizens.


26 posted on 04/19/2014 3:33:25 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sagar

>>It is funny that 99% of Free Republic was cheering for Patriot Act back then, calling libtards as anti-Americans for not going with the fed gubmint schemes.<<

I was part of the 1% and I haven’t changed my opinion.


27 posted on 04/19/2014 3:33:48 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Even if it weren’t, the 10th says we reserve the power to declare it unacceptable.


28 posted on 04/19/2014 3:36:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Me too. I remember Nixon too well.


29 posted on 04/19/2014 3:37:58 PM PDT by null and void (...if you are too sure of your place in heaven you might be too arrogant to actually get there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

“The NSA has a duty to keep an eye on foreign interests who plot against us.”

The NSA think that they have a duty to keep an eye on all who might plot against us.

“We can’t prevent attacks on the homeland if we don’t know about them.”

That is why they are keeping an eye on everything, not just foreign activities.

“That duty does not outweigh the constitutional rights of American citizens.”

This is what I meant by shit and carpet analogy.


30 posted on 04/19/2014 3:38:00 PM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Would the judge agree that the government can open your mail before you receive it?


31 posted on 04/19/2014 3:43:12 PM PDT by eyedigress ((zOld storm chaser from the west)/ ?s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rodentking

He has been trending hard Statist for a while now.


32 posted on 04/19/2014 3:44:49 PM PDT by Psalm 144 (FIGHT! FIGHT! SEVERE CONSERVATIVE AND THE WILD RIGHT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

“I’m in a small minority that thinks the Supreme Court is ill equipped to make any decisions.”

I’m an attorney. I assure you they’re less equipped than you think. They’re more politician than judge, and have a propensity to ignore the law when it suits them.


33 posted on 04/19/2014 3:45:57 PM PDT by Smedley (It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sagar
The NSA think that they have a duty to keep an eye on all who might plot against us.

They do ... if by "all" they mean those who aren't American citizens residing on U.S. soil.

34 posted on 04/19/2014 3:48:01 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress

I doubt it.


35 posted on 04/19/2014 3:49:07 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Smedley

IANAL, but it does seem that the ability to duck, bob, and weave increases as the level of a Judge increases.


36 posted on 04/19/2014 3:50:31 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: chajin

Thanks for the link.


37 posted on 04/19/2014 3:51:21 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sagar

after 9/11/01 the responsible agencies definitely needed to be restructured and George Bush was a good one to tackle the problem because he used the military and intelligence leaders to make it happen.

But, since then all sorts of changes incurred to make the system dangerous to the everyday citizen. As an example, when Bush left office, NSA could only monitor calls which had a foreign leg. Now both legs can be domestic. That is a big difference.


38 posted on 04/19/2014 3:58:06 PM PDT by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-hereQaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Jefferson is not a good person to quote....because he usually says the contrary someplace else.


39 posted on 04/19/2014 4:06:02 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

“They do ... if by “all” they mean those who aren’t American citizens residing on U.S. soil.”

All means all, not just foreign citizens. At least that is their rationale... once it was signed off, the bureaucratic agencies will have life of their own. Give them an inch...


40 posted on 04/19/2014 4:07:15 PM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: elpadre

A system of surveillance was put in place with bi-partisan support and with the support of vast majority of the people. People chose security over privacy. Now the system evolved and the same people are bitching.


41 posted on 04/19/2014 4:09:14 PM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau; All
... ....because he usually says the contrary someplace else.

I've been studying Jefferson for years and I respectfully disagree.

42 posted on 04/19/2014 4:16:00 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Justice Scalia is trying to influence the appeals court.

December 16, 2013

A federal judge ruled Monday that the National Security Agency’s daily collection of virtually all Americans’ phone records is almost certainly unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon found that a lawsuit by Larry Klayman, a conservative legal activist, has “demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success” on the basis of Fourth Amendment privacy protections against unreasonable searches.

The U.S. Government has appealed.


43 posted on 04/19/2014 4:25:17 PM PDT by SvenMagnussen (1983 ... the year Obama became a naturalized U.S. citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

He defends the TSA. All I need to know. He’s in the tank too.


44 posted on 04/19/2014 4:40:39 PM PDT by Luke21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

So, an unknown fear is so great that it must supersede our natural rights?

Let me propose to the associate justice that there exists a boogeyman. We cannot tell you what this boogeyman is, or how great it is, or what it does, but we can assure you that it may or may not destroy the entire United States *unless* the Supreme Court of the United States is abolished.

Does this clarify things for him?

Unless the SCOTUS ceases to exist, the “monster” wins, or maybe not. It is a totally faith based monster.

Or maybe if an associate justice looks in a mirror and says “Boogeyman” three times, then the boogeyman comes forth and destroys America. Or maybe not.

It is the magic-based American justice system. It is not a way for a Supreme Court to function.

In a year holding a three, or seven,
or five, or nine, or maybe not,
Two things, might be people, or armies,
or buildings,
Or anything really, blades of grass,
or stoats, or crapulous charlatans
spouting mimsy,
Might do something nebulous.
Insert made-up-bit here.

—Generic Nostradamus Quatrain from
“The Guardian” newspaper


45 posted on 04/19/2014 4:41:05 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (WoT News: Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
As Ruth has said there are very few freedoms that are absolute.

What's a "freedom"?

A Right?

Or a Privilege?

46 posted on 04/19/2014 5:05:46 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

It’s foolish to keep such ninnies in our Supreme Court.


47 posted on 04/19/2014 5:12:07 PM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

Whatever the government says it is at any point in time. Better have a gun the way this sounds.


48 posted on 04/19/2014 5:19:46 PM PDT by Karl Spooner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: sagar
It is funny that 99% of Free Republic was cheering for Patriot Act back then

I wasn't cheering it but will admit I trusted the gov not to intrude on my privacy. I also trusted the gov not to allow this once great country to be taken over by an evil usurper with their full support and approval. I trusted the GOP not to keep putting up obvious losers and not pimp for communism. I trusted the SCOTUS not to "evade" the eligibility question. I trusted our leaders to keep our Constitution and freedoms sacred. I was naive, stupid and very wrong.

49 posted on 04/19/2014 5:23:04 PM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

I’m looking at the trend of the court to mold law rather than interpret it. Numerous statements from Kagan and Sotomayor have been little more than activist rhetoric and the twisted opinion from John Roberts turning the Democrat Commerce Clause argument on ACA into one of taxation was bizarre, to me. I am agreeing with Mark Levin on the need to end the lifetime status of Supremes.


50 posted on 04/19/2014 5:30:40 PM PDT by Baynative (Got bulbs? Check my profile page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 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