Skip to comments.JUSTICE SCALIA: 'FOOLISH' TO HAVE THE SUPREME COURT DECIDE IF NSA WIRETAPPING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
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 ...
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Gotta say, Judge, I am disappointed in this.
I’m in a small minority that thinks the Supreme Court is ill equipped to make any decisions.
Part of the solution or part of the problem? Pretty clear he is part of the problem.
“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.
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.
And he is supposed to be one of the few on our side... God help us!
His imagination is dead.
What does not infringe mean?
Because SCOTUS doesn’t do that anymore??
Well...the constitution formed the SCOTUS, and it can undo it.
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.
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.
"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"
Yeah. Scalia is a friend of America and the Right. *major eyeroll*
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.
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?
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.
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.
“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.
Sorry, Justice Scalia, but it’s a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.
“I dont 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.
There is nothing reasonable about the TSA or anything it does.
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
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.
>>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.
Even if it weren’t, the 10th says we reserve the power to declare it unacceptable.
Me too. I remember Nixon too well.
“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 cant prevent attacks on the homeland if we dont 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.
Would the judge agree that the government can open your mail before you receive it?
He has been trending hard Statist for a while now.
“Im 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.
They do ... if by "all" they mean those who aren't American citizens residing on U.S. soil.
I doubt it.
IANAL, but it does seem that the ability to duck, bob, and weave increases as the level of a Judge increases.
Thanks for the link.
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.
Jefferson is not a good person to quote....because he usually says the contrary someplace else.
“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...
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.
I've been studying Jefferson for years and I respectfully disagree.
Justice Scalia is trying to influence the appeals court.
December 16, 2013
A federal judge ruled Monday that the National Security Agencys 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.
He defends the TSA. All I need to know. He’s in the tank too.
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 anything really, blades of grass,
or stoats, or crapulous charlatans
Might do something nebulous.
Insert made-up-bit here.
—Generic Nostradamus Quatrain from
“The Guardian” newspaper
What's a "freedom"?
Or a Privilege?
It’s foolish to keep such ninnies in our Supreme Court.
Whatever the government says it is at any point in time. Better have a gun the way this sounds.
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.
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.