- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 6/29/26 at 10:37 am to Ailsa
Posted on 6/29/26 at 10:38 am to hogcard1964
quote:
Why?
Lost the ballots and Cooks case
E. Jean Carroll decision
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 10:45 am
Posted on 6/29/26 at 10:39 am to thejuiceisloose
Posted on 6/29/26 at 10:40 am to Ailsa
Posted on 6/29/26 at 10:50 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Yeah, if someone robs me at gunpoint my biggest concern is definitely whether or not the government will see my text messages during the time of the crime.
Some of us support small government and the constitution. Others, such as yourself, support Big Daddy governments if it can make them feel more “safe.” Pathetic
Posted on 6/29/26 at 10:54 am to tigeraddict
Posted on 6/29/26 at 10:56 am to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Some of us support small government and the constitution. Others, such as yourself, support Big Daddy governments if it can make them feel more “safe.” Pathetic
No one in his/her right mind wants crimes to be impossible to solve. Essentially, we're saying we want law enforcement to never use advancements in technology to solve crimes. How does that help anyone?
This is the same as saying you can't use video cameras to track down criminals because other people are on the cameras too. It's obviously nonsensical.
ETA: Also,
at onmymedicalgrind saying he supports small government.This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 10:59 am
Posted on 6/29/26 at 10:58 am to cajunangelle
I can always tell which were the 3 in every case. It’s amazing how they blindly vote without even considering the merits or constitution. I don’t agree with the rulings of the other 6 all the time but at least they try to articulate why they voted like they voted.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 10:58 am to cajunangelle
The fact that 3 Justices don't think the head of the Executive Branch can fire Exec Employees is pretty frightening
Posted on 6/29/26 at 11:03 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
No one in his/her right mind wants crimes to be impossible to solve.
Crimes can’t be solved without geofencing? How did any crime ever get solved before very recently
quote:
Essentially, we're saying we want law enforcement to never use advancements in technology to solve crimes.
If this is your interpretation, then you are even dumber than I thought.
quote:
This is the same as saying you can't use video cameras to track down criminals because other people are on the cameras too. It's obviously nonsensical.
Your analogizing of geofencing to video cameras…new level of dumb reached.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 11:30 am to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Some of us support small government and the constitution. Others, such as yourself, support Big Daddy governments if it can make them feel more “safe.” Pathetic
You support vaccine mandates from the government.
You think a person should not have the right to choose to not be injected with drugs by the government.
Stop pretending you’re something you’re not.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 11:37 am to BigPerm30
quote:
I can always tell which were the 3 in every case. It’s amazing how they blindly vote without even considering the merits or constitution
At least one of them opens her eyes long enough to see what color they are or how it will support the progressive cause.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 11:40 am to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Crimes can’t be solved without geofencing? How did any crime ever get solved before very recently
This crime would not have been solved without this geofencing. That's correct. Yes, many crimes have not been solved because these methods were unavailable.
quote:
If this is your interpretation, then you are even dumber than I thought.
That is the only interpretation. We're limiting the use of an available tool because the tool might include other people. There is no tool that might not include other people.
quote:
Your analogizing of geofencing to video cameras…new level of dumb reached.
This is the response of someone who can't compete with the logic presented to him.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 11:47 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
The fact that 3 Justices don't think the head of the Executive Branch can fire Exec Employees is pretty frightening
There has been a foundational neutering of Congressional power today with that ruling. Congress no longer can define the terms of its legislation.
It's funny that one case today rules "Congress has to act to fix this" and another rules "Congress can't set the parameters of its laws trying to fix something else"
I'm not sure what the limits of Executive power granted via legislation are, at this point, if Congress has lost the ability to define the limited transfer of power in the legislation it creates.
*ETA: I don't see how the APA can be legal anymore, for example.
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 11:50 am
Posted on 6/29/26 at 11:53 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
No, I can't see a situation where it is a bad thing that law enforcement can see who was in an area at the time a crime took place and develop a list of suspects from that information.
Then you’re not really trying.
Hell, who defines the “area”? Why not scan the data of the whole city in case there were accomplices that were off site?
Posted on 6/29/26 at 12:00 pm to slackster
quote:
Then you’re not really trying.
Hell, who defines the “area”? Why not scan the data of the whole city in case there were accomplices that were off site?
They knew a crime took place, when it took place, and where it took place. That defined the area, time, etc. The only lead they had was that the guy was on his cell phone when he entered the bank. Without this data, the crime is never solved.
ETA: Alito's dissent in this case is a great read.
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 6/29/26 at 12:04 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
This is the same as saying you can't use video cameras to track down criminals because other people are on the cameras too. It's obviously nonsensical.
It is not the same.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 12:06 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Alito's dissent in this case is a great read.
I’ll read both.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 12:07 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
No, I can't see a situation where it is a bad thing that law enforcement can see who was in an area at the time a crime took place and develop a list of suspects from that information.
In your scenario and legal standard, what if the cops found a different illegal behavior by one of the people they observed in this process. Completely unrelated from the crime they were investigating with no factual overlap whatsoever.
Do you think they should be able to use that evidence in a separate prosecution?
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News