Five Out Of Nine SCOTUS Judges Can Not Read

April 3, 2012

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

—

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.
Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip-Searches for Any Arrest

The same judges that can not read will likely find that a government demand that the people health insure themselves will be an infringement of personal rights.

This adds another reason why I will to not again visit the States.

Posted by b on April 3, 2012 at 16:40 UTC | Permalink

Comments

I’m never going to that hellhole as long as that twoparty regime has the power.

Posted by: Alexander | Apr 3 2012 16:54 utc | 1

They read that the people will not riot.

Posted by: Biklett | Apr 3 2012 18:04 utc | 2

I visited the States once – to be honest the most succinct phrase I could use to describe it was “Cheap and Nasty”

Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 3 2012 18:06 utc | 3

They can read just fine. It’s telling the truth that is hard for them. There is no constitution. There are the whims of the ruling class, which are to be called “law” to fool the masses. And the masses, for the most part buy it.

Posted by: Lysander | Apr 3 2012 19:00 utc | 4

Not much better over here. The legal system in most of the West consists of millionaire judges debating with millionaire lawyers on how best to punish poor people. Rotten to the core. On the US legal system, the silver lining is that the more the judges pass this Gestapo crap (like the right to strip search people for any offense) the more people will see the system for what it is, which is a good thing. Most Americans don’t care about the news that Muslims are losing their civil rights… but when it is them being bent against the wall naked for some minor crime like smoking a joint or drunken disorderly I reckon they will start to care.

Posted by: Colm O’ Toole | Apr 3 2012 19:50 utc | 5

neither jurisprudence nor justice, just junk
i am happily forbidden to ever enter their territory – that has become a state of grâce for me

Posted by: remebererringgiap | Apr 3 2012 20:08 utc | 6

@5
If there’s any silver lining, such searches aren’t mandatory. It will be up to local authorities to make the decision based on their policy. I would imagine that police who have been doing this routinely will continue to do so since they have the court’s blessing, and those that never did, won’t start.

Posted by: assiza | Apr 3 2012 20:08 utc | 7

“This adds another reason why I will to not again visit the States”
Just curious – where is your location? At least approximately.

Posted by: miles | Apr 3 2012 20:36 utc | 8

b, the health insurance over here is not at all what it is over there, nor will it be with the mandate. Forcing people to buy the highest priced by far for profit insurance in the world and the highest pharmaceuticals too is a really bad idea. Our health stats are in line with number 37 in the world (Costa Rica)…. and they do it for one sixth the cost we do. At best the health looting bill only promises to slow the rise in costs. I earn a bit more than the average ‘merican… but it’s far from six times the average Costa Rican.
The entire premise of guaranteeing insurance and pharma money, yet no premise that health care is a human right should be all one need to know in addition to the costs and stats mentioned above.
bmaz over at emptywheel cuts to the legal chase on both sides of the supreme arguments…
http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/04/01/requiem-for-aca-at-scotus-legitimacy-of-court-and-case

Posted by: Eureka Springs | Apr 3 2012 20:52 utc | 9

assiza @ 7 — I believe that the wording of the decision may make automatic strip searches the rule rather than something decided by state or local law.
And I can well imagine NYC Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly are absolutely thrilled that they can now subject protesters, marchers, anyone they want to arrest to the humiliation of strip searches.
Just one more means of control and suppression.

Posted by: jawbone | Apr 3 2012 21:35 utc | 10

@10
I disagree. The court only ruled that law enforcement has that right. It imposed no obligation on them to do so.

Posted by: assiza | Apr 3 2012 21:44 utc | 11

am i the only one to notice that the US ignores the 4th amendment in places like Afghanistan and iraq?

Posted by: brian | Apr 3 2012 21:45 utc | 12

WNYC is now interviewing an atty who won strip search litigation against NYC. He’s saying one of his cases would now not be considered an illegal search. But he said NYC put in place procedures which presently make strip searches unnecessary.
Looks like there are layers and layers to be checked on before saying exactly what the Supremos have wrought with this doozy of a decision.

Posted by: jawbone | Apr 3 2012 21:59 utc | 13

@ 9
The bmaz link is a good read.
I believe that, although Obamacare includes a few elements of health care reform, it is primarily a corporate welfare program for the parasitic health insurance industry.
I think that our reactionary Supreme Court would do us a favor by striking it down and sending us back to the drawing board.

Posted by: Watson | Apr 3 2012 22:25 utc | 14

Eureka Springs is right. the government can, and does, provide “free” health insurance to all kinds of people that fit into certain groups. that’s not what the case before the SC is about, though. it’s about whether you can force people to buy something. it’s perfectly legal to offer the service, and then pay for it out of the treasury with taxes. the reason this is before the SC is that the mechanism is wrong. if the law is allowed to stand, then it sets forth the precedent that the government can make ALL purchasing decisions. and that is a “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” issue.
if you want to hate something about america, then choose something more worthwhile like NDAA.

Posted by: Proton Soup | Apr 3 2012 23:17 utc | 15

@5: Colm O’ Toole: What’s going on in the US is just a warmup for Europe–the last bastion of nominal regard for human and civil rights. GWOT, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Arab world generally were the offshore training grounds for special forces and tools of repression. Though resistance to foreign occupation blunted their effectiveness in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are nonetheless ready for reimport back to the United States.
Oil magnates (Koch brothers) and security contractors have their eyes aglow with profits in North America–any resistance to fracking gas and digging for tar sands will be met with violent oppression. In 20 years you can expect wide swaths of North America to look like West Virginia, where mountain tops have been systematically removed, destroying the environment and polluting everything around.
But there’s plenty of unconventional energy underground in Europe, too. http://www.epmag.com/Production-Drilling/Unconventional-Shale-Gas-Soon-A-Global-Resource_78404
Given European lap dog fealty to US interests and the unconscionable wealth of energy barons, ready to buy up politicians, Europe will not be far behind the US’ descent into tyranny.

Posted by: JohnH | Apr 3 2012 23:37 utc | 16

South Africa’s oil imports from Iran surge defying US-led embargoes
Press TV – April 3, 2012
South Africa has increased its crude imports from Iran to USD 364 million in February, up from zero in the previous month, firmly ignoring the US-led oil embargo on the Islamic Republic, an official report says.
South Africa’s Revenue Service revealed on Monday that the country imported 417,000 tons of Iranian crude in February, indicating a dramatic change of a declining trend seen since October, when the country last imported 467,000 tons of the commodity, according to Reuters.

Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 4 2012 0:19 utc | 17

‘ What’s going on in the US is just a warmup for Europe–the last bastion of nominal regard for human and civil rights’]
oh really? this is the EU we are talking about…home of NATO! which kills men women and children in afghanistsn and Libya..european politicians are as alien to human rights as the americans.

Posted by: brian | Apr 4 2012 4:20 utc | 18

Difference between EU and US is death-penalty and torture, othervise there is just as much illegal surveilance, arrests and whatnot in EU, and the NATO-countries are subordinate to the US anyways. Oh, and the US are quite alone in defending their right to execute “terror-suspects” without due process.. Guess there are some differences after all.

Posted by: Alexander | Apr 4 2012 4:43 utc | 19

I can’t even tell if I’m being sarcastical myself.

Posted by: Alexander | Apr 4 2012 4:45 utc | 20

The mandate in the healthcare bill is not forcing anyone to buy anything. It works like the tax break you get if you buy a house. Renters get no tax credit if they rent their homes or apartmemnts. Same with the so-called healthcare mandate. If you buy health insurance, you pay a lower tax rate. If you don’t buy health insurance, you pay a higher tax rate. Other than a different tax rate, there is no penalty for not buying health insurance. No matter, the Supreme Court will do what the ruling elites want them to do. This nation has become a farce. The constitution and the rule of law only apply when they benefit the ruling elites. The working classes are screwed.

Posted by: ben | Apr 4 2012 5:38 utc | 21

One final thought, if the tax incentives for buying health insurance are unconstitutional, then the renters of this nation have a bitch too.

Posted by: ben | Apr 4 2012 5:43 utc | 22

I concede that ‘b’ has demonstrated that the Supreme Court decision is in conflict with the plain language of the Constitution. But I’d like to add a few words in defense of the decision. Suppose that X% of all arrestees possess contraband, but the jailers have no clue which arrestees possess the contraband and which don’t, and so the jailers strip search everybody. Suppose X% = 75%. Then surely we’re agreed the jailers have “probable cause” to search (since the odds are 3-to-1 in favour of finding contraband on a random arrestee). Now suppose we gradually reduce the probability, X, until we reach the X that is no longer high enough to provide “probable cause”. What number is that threshold X? The answer is decided by community values. It is not decided by a plain or objective interpretation of “probable cause”, nor by logic, nor by abstract law. The major Supreme Court decisions are usually fundamentally a reflection of community values, with the legalistic logic retrofitted to that, and the Constitution itself is — by Constitutional Law — a “living document” that can be and sometimes is reinterpreted in whatever way suits the contemporary community values. E.g. compare “Bowers v. Hardwick” (1986) with “Lawrence v. Texas” (2003).
If the political community doesn’t want to tolerate even a tiny tiny weeney amount of contraband in the jails, that creates the probable cause to strip search everybody.
I did not read the justification of the judges in this case, nor read any newspaper article about it, and I don’t plan to.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Apr 4 2012 8:32 utc | 23

Better comparison regarding “community values” at the US Supreme Court:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
Griswold v. Connecticut (year 1965) is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the Connecticut law on the grounds that it violated the “right to marital privacy”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick
Bowers v. Hardwick (year 1986) is a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld, in a 5-4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults when applied to homosexuals.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Apr 4 2012 9:09 utc | 24

@21 – the healthcare bill was written by and for insurance companies. Don’t step in dog shit by defending it. Even if it doesn’t pass and is struck down as unconstitutional it was never meant to be equitable to the the masses. Single Payer would have done that and it was never a consideration. It’s tails they win and heads they win. It’s tails you lose and heads you lose. Thanks for playing although you didn’t have a choice. Play you must. Your only escape is suicide.

Posted by: Sultanist | Apr 4 2012 12:51 utc | 25

In Norway the healthcare-model is, you pay up to 300 per year for mediacl bills, and anything above, the state covers. The most vital perscription drugs are free, after the $300 minimum is reached. So, for most people in Norway, health-care cost rarely exceed $300. That’s the dreaded sosialism we have in Norway, that is unthinkable in the US. No private insurance needed.
The whole health-care debate in the US is really absurd for the Norwegian audience.

Posted by: Alexander | Apr 4 2012 13:45 utc | 26

These pieces of shit in DC have no resemblence to the leaders of a government that is a “representative” in nature. This disregard for the Constitution is the rule rather than the exception. Just look at Obama’s disdain for the rule of law, exhibited by his excuses for not investigating, indicting, and prosecuting the criminals in the Bush Administration. With a simple bit of blather about “looking forward rather than backward” he cast aside the rule of law, cavalier in his tacit admission that our politicians are not held to the same standard of law that the citizens must adhere to.
Ever known a cop that, after some time in the profession, is not a complete and utter asshole? Power does that. So does a steady diet of dealing with criminals and human hardship. So, when these narcissistic power mad judges (like our highest court consists of) hand down these decisions, it is a GUARANTEE that the decision will lead to abuse.
Know any “corrections officers”? Following what is going on with the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department’s corrections officers? These guys are gangsters, sick twisted fucks. Same here in Kern County, where there is damned near as many prisons as there are car dealers. I know quite a few corrections officers, men and women. And there isn’t a one of them that isn’t jaded towards the sadistic. The job does it to them. To tell these people “go ahead, humiliate the skells” is an epic mistake.
B says he doesn’t wanna come here. Well, how does he think it feels being here, knowing that everything we claim to be, everything the Founding Fathers envisioned is being SHAT UPON by the very people tasked to fulfill and protect that vision? I’m ashamed to be an American now. WE have become the “evil Empire”.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Apr 4 2012 14:12 utc | 27

Sultanist@25: Yep, you’re spot on. The healthcare bill is shit, but simply understanding it, doesn’t mean I like it. Funneling 37 million people to the for profit insurance companies is what Obama is paid to do. Support the wealthy, and the ruling elites.

Posted by: ben | Apr 4 2012 14:12 utc | 28

In 1969 I was picked up on a wayward minor charge at 17 (my father’s doing)and he in teaching me a lesson(one I never forgot,don’t get arrested),failed to meet court time date,I was sent to the Nassau County Jail overnight and I was strip searched,so it’s nothing new,just more repression in our modern police state.
And yeah,the POS Obomba,who gave US all the shaft in believing his change mantra,has turned into the corporates lap dog in enshrining profit over people and eschewing the public option that we should have gotten,will hopefully be One And Done so we can properly critique identical behavior by Willard,so the fraudulent liberal yuppie morons who fail to see the obvious twinning of policy will go back on their hypocritical offensive,which is at least better than now.

Posted by: dahoit | Apr 4 2012 14:34 utc | 29

POA @ 27:
“B says he doesn’t wanna come here. Well, how does he think it feels being here, knowing that everything we claim to be, everything the Founding Fathers envisioned is being SHAT UPON by the very people tasked to fulfill and protect that vision? I’m ashamed to be an American now. WE have become the “evil Empire”.
You can add my name to the above statement!

Posted by: ben | Apr 4 2012 14:35 utc | 30

Meanwhile, the ICC officially reveals itself as nothing more than a kangaroo court, meting out “justice” to the defeated.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/04/04
Oh well, we already knew this with the Special Tribune for Lebanon. But their refusal to investigate war crimes in Gaza is just blatant hypocrisy. They won’t investigate because Palestine isn’t a state. Of course not, it’s being occupied!

Posted by: JohnH | Apr 4 2012 14:53 utc | 31

I’m posting this here as one more example of “Life in These United States’:
US Draws Up Plans for Nuclear Drones
Well, as Susie at Suburban Guerrilla asks, what could possibly go wrong?
Except that drones tend to have more problems leading to crashes than the US MCM has informed people about. As of now, the plans are to use nuclear power as the power source for these long flying drones.

“It’s pretty terrifying prospect,” said Chris Coles of Drone Wars UK, which campaigns against the increasing use of drones for both military and civilian purposes. “Drones are much less safe than other aircraft and tend to crash a lot. There is a major push by this industry to increase the use of drones and both the public and government are struggling to keep up with the implications.”
SNIP
The research team found that the nuclear drones were able to provide far more surveillance time and intelligence information per mission compared to other technologies, and also to reduce the considerable costs of support systems – eliminating the need, for example, for forward bases and fuel supplies in remote and possibly hostile areas.
A halt has been called to the work for now, due to worries that public opinion will not accept the idea of such a potentially hazardous technology, with the inherent dangers of either a crash – in effect turning the drone into a so-called dirty bomb – or of its nuclear propulsion system falling into the hands of terrorists or unfriendly powers. (My emphasis)

Really? What could possibly go wrong?

Posted by: jawbone | Apr 4 2012 15:20 utc | 32

Ah, alas, yes, JohnH @ 31 — He who pays the piper calls the tune.
As noted in b’s post, the Five Supremos pay attention to those in power with whom they agree. So, also, for this international court –which the US proposed and then refused to join– but, the powerful manage to control even those institutions which they refuse to be governed by. Well, that’s part and parcel of being powerful, eh? Sadly interesting.

Posted by: jawbone | Apr 4 2012 16:04 utc | 33

Alexander @26
1) How does the Norwegian government fund the health costs above the Kr300 that individuals pay? Oil royalties or a percentage of income taxes or in another way?
2) How does the Norwegian government control health care costs?

Posted by: ab initio | Apr 4 2012 16:22 utc | 34

@miles @8 – Just curious – where is your location? At least approximately.
I am a German industrial engineer with an additional MBA doing IT consulting and general management work in Hamburg, Germany. Though during the 1990s I worked as a chief technical officer with a bigger U.S. company and often visited the States. Since then I have worked mostly with bigger media companies. This blog is my hobby though one that is quite time demanding.

Posted by: b | Apr 4 2012 18:10 utc | 35

ab initio @ 34
1) Percentage of income tax. The general health of the population is considered a public responsibility. A healthy public are more productive, so it pays for itself, that’s the idea.
2) The hospitals are run by the government. GP/MD consultation costs are split between patient and public funding, up to the $300 limit where the public covers all. The covering of medication cost only cover the price of generic copies, cost of brand names are added for patients who wish to use those. Where there is no generic copy, the government pays anyway. There are some exception medications patients have to pay for themselves, like drugs that can be used for “entertainment” purposes.

Posted by: Alexander | Apr 4 2012 18:16 utc | 36

PissedOffAmerican @ 27
With a simple bit of blather about “looking forward rather than backward” he cast aside the rule of law, cavalier in his tacit admission that our politicians are not held to the same standard of law that the citizens must adhere to.
Indeed, and the drone executions, without due process, it’s outrageously unconstitutional.
I’d sign up to your post too. Couldn’t agree more.

Posted by: Alexander | Apr 4 2012 18:19 utc | 37

b @ 35
This blog is my hobby though one that is quite time demanding.
And we appreciate it, really do. Thanks b, hope your health is good.

Posted by: Alexander | Apr 4 2012 18:22 utc | 38

b@35
I missed Billmon like a lost brother.
You’re a good substitute. Keep up the good show, you’re needed.

Posted by: Miles Kendig | Apr 4 2012 19:49 utc | 39

@ 38, 39
Ditto !!

Posted by: Watson | Apr 4 2012 20:24 utc | 40

@16
I disagree that European elites have “lapdog fealty” to US interests. I think those interests are one and the same.

Posted by: azzisa | Apr 4 2012 21:11 utc | 41

Just to add, I think much of the European political establishment uses the US as cover for its own political aspirations which are fundamentally the same as the US. You know, “the Americans are crazy rightwingers, but they are allies, politically and economically important, so what else are we to do but go along with them (wink wink)? Our hands are tied.”

Posted by: azzisa | Apr 4 2012 21:28 utc | 42

Here in the US it’s not uncommon for someone to be referred to as a “national treasure.”
B is an “international treasure.”
What Miles Kendig @39 said was spot on and what I was thinking. Stay well, b…and has anyone heard anything from Billmon recently?

Posted by: jawbone | Apr 4 2012 22:52 utc | 43

It is a very informative and useful post thanks it is good material to read this post increases my knowledge

Posted by: public liability insurance | Apr 4 2012 22:58 utc | 44

Really great post, Thank you for sharing This knowledge.Excellently written article, if only all bloggers offered the same level of content as you, the internet would be a much better place. Please keep it up!

Posted by: Nagelpilz Behandlung | Apr 25 2012 12:49 utc | 45

This blog is an exact representation of skills. I appreciate the blogger for posting the most excellent thought. This topic posted by you is trustworthy. I like you recommendation.Your recommendation is of well use to people. A great article post, this is something very interesting. A great concept that reflects the excellent thoughts of the writer.

Posted by: Xerox Phaser Toner Cartridges | Apr 25 2012 12:53 utc | 46

hi … I have never seen a smart articles that you created. It really helped me to get back my ideas for writing. I will save this post, for I learn more.

Posted by: car accidents infographic | Apr 25 2012 13:36 utc | 47

Back to Main