Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Jun 21, 2004, 03:01 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/21/scotus.p...e.id/index.html

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has again given police greater power to stop and question suspects, ruling Monday that a Nevada cowboy could not refuse to give his name to officers who tried to question him along a roadside.

The case was the fifth victory for law enforcement this term in cases involving search and seizure by law enforcement. The narrow 5-4 ruling was seen as a defeat for privacy advocates.

Larry "Dudley" Hiibel, the Nevada rancher at the center of the case, had become a minor celebrity for those who believed he was standing up for his constitutional rights.

He was arrested after he told a deputy that he didn't have to reveal his name or show an ID during an encounter on a rural road in 2000. Hiibel was prosecuted, based on his silence and fined $250. The Nevada Supreme Court sided with police on a 4-3 vote."

THIS IS BULLSHIT
the 4th ammendment guarantees a right to the kind of privacy that was violated here. this republican-owned court system is sh!tting on my Constitution! since when is silence a crime?

bishop · Jun 21, 2004, 03:07 pm

bullshit indeed...

kind of like how they charge people of conspiracy in drug "crimes"..

i can only imagine the kind of crap they'll push for if bush gets a second term.

dotcoma · Jun 21, 2004, 03:12 pm

I agree with everything but...

Quote:

republican-owned court system

Jun 21, 2004, 03:13 pm

I saw two Justices mentioned in that article. How did you come to the conclusion that the 5 were the "Republican" ones?

Jun 21, 2004, 03:15 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by bishop,
kind of like how they charge people of conspiracy in drug "crimes"..

i can only imagine the kind of crap they'll push for if bush gets a second term.

Yah, 'cuz Kerry's gonna toss the "War on Drugs" to the wind! I'm sure!!

bishop · Jun 21, 2004, 03:28 pm

what's your point KSoDBartman?

i find it hard to believe that kerry would be pushing for a right-wing court system if he was in office.

Jun 21, 2004, 03:31 pm

I find it easy to believe Kerry would install judges that take a dim view of certain Constitutional rights.

bishop · Jun 21, 2004, 03:35 pm

then i'll agree to disagree.

Jun 21, 2004, 03:42 pm

Are you seriously deluded into thinking Kerry is the paragon of Constitutional chastity?

bishop · Jun 21, 2004, 03:45 pm

i'm not interested in having an argument. sorry.

if anything, he won't be any worse than bush.

Jun 21, 2004, 03:49 pm

He's socialist. How can he be any better?

Gorgo · Jun 21, 2004, 03:51 pm

Interesting Bob_Dobbs.

Jun 21, 2004, 03:51 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by KSoDBartman,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KSoDBartman,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-bishop,
kind of like how they charge people of conspiracy in drug "crimes"..

i can only imagine the kind of crap they'll push for if bush gets a second term.

Yah, 'cuz Kerry's gonna toss the "War on Drugs" to the wind! I'm sure!![/b][/quote]

That is a given, Kerry would lose a lot friends around the Kum Bay Ya campfire if he backed the war on drugs.

bishop · Jun 21, 2004, 03:57 pm

i'm willing to take my chances..

he's also no socialist - he voted for every free trade act that crossed the senate's path. also, funny that you'd call kerry a socialist when bush is pushing some of the biggest welfare additions in recent history. a bit hypocritical to say the least.

frankly, i would've voted for nolan, but since he lost, i'm stuck between holding my nose and voting either LP or for kerry.

BD... what was the court's rationale? that ruling just shocks the senses. there has to be something else to this.

dotcoma · Jun 21, 2004, 04:02 pm

Yeah, Clinton didn't "back" or expand the war on drugs at all did he

. So much for that theory.

Jun 21, 2004, 04:13 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by bishop,
also, funny that you'd call kerry a socialist when bush is pushing some of the biggest welfare additions in recent history. a bit hypocritical to say the least.

Hypocritical? Really? Please point me to the place where I said Bush was NOT socialist.

I'll be at the bar while you look...

...for a long while.

bishop · Jun 21, 2004, 04:19 pm

he spoke about reducing penalties for possession during his second term.

unfortunately, i don't know all the details.

dotcoma · Jun 21, 2004, 04:21 pm

Quote:

Hypocritical? Really? Please point me to the place where I said Bush was NOT socialist.

it was implied. If you think Bush is a socialists: say so.

Jun 21, 2004, 05:30 pm

What, do I have to list my opinion on every single topic that ever existed from the Precambrian Era to now in order to keep you people from making asses of yourselves and assuming things when you have no facts to support that assumption?

If you do not know what I think of Bush there is a simple way of finding out without looking like a jackass: ASK ME.

I implied NOTHING about my opinion about Bush in my posts here. The "implication" was your own ASSumption.

dotcoma · Jun 21, 2004, 05:36 pm

Quote:

He's socialist. How can he be any better?

This implies that Kerry is a socialist and that Bush is not. Are you saying it does not imply such?

Jun 21, 2004, 03:07 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	bullshit indeed... kind of like how they charge people of conspiracy in drug "crimes".. i can only imagine the kind of crap they'll push for if bush gets a second term. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Jun 21, 2004, 03:28 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	what's your point KSoDBartman? i find it hard to believe that kerry would be pushing for a right-wing court system if he was in office. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Jun 21, 2004, 03:35 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	then i'll agree to disagree. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Jun 21, 2004, 03:45 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	i'm not interested in having an argument. sorry. if anything, he won't be any worse than bush. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Jun 21, 2004, 03:57 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	i'm willing to take my chances.. he's also no socialist - he voted for every free trade act that crossed the senate's path. also, funny that you'd call kerry a socialist when bush is pushing some of the biggest welfare additions in recent history. a bit hypocritical to say the least. frankly, i would've voted for nolan, but since he lost, i'm stuck between holding my nose and voting either LP or for kerry. BD... what was the court's rationale? that ruling just shocks the senses. there has to be something else to this. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Jun 21, 2004, 03:01 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Bob_Dobbs Guest Posts: n/a	http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/21/scotus.p...e.id/index.html "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has again given police greater power to stop and question suspects, ruling Monday that a Nevada cowboy could not refuse to give his name to officers who tried to question him along a roadside. The case was the fifth victory for law enforcement this term in cases involving search and seizure by law enforcement. The narrow 5-4 ruling was seen as a defeat for privacy advocates. Larry "Dudley" Hiibel, the Nevada rancher at the center of the case, had become a minor celebrity for those who believed he was standing up for his constitutional rights. He was arrested after he told a deputy that he didn't have to reveal his name or show an ID during an encounter on a rural road in 2000. Hiibel was prosecuted, based on his silence and fined $250. The Nevada Supreme Court sided with police on a 4-3 vote." THIS IS BULLSHIT the 4th ammendment guarantees a right to the kind of privacy that was violated here. this republican-owned court system is sh!tting on my Constitution! since when is silence a crime?

Jun 21, 2004, 03:13 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
KSoDBartman Guest Posts: n/a	I saw two Justices mentioned in that article. How did you come to the conclusion that the 5 were the "Republican" ones?

Jun 21, 2004, 03:31 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
KSoDBartman Guest Posts: n/a	I find it easy to believe Kerry would install judges that take a dim view of certain Constitutional rights.

Jun 21, 2004, 03:42 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
KSoDBartman Guest Posts: n/a	Are you seriously deluded into thinking Kerry is the paragon of Constitutional chastity?

Jun 21, 2004, 03:49 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
KSoDBartman Guest Posts: n/a	He's socialist. How can he be any better?

Jun 21, 2004, 03:51 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	Interesting Bob_Dobbs.

Jun 21, 2004, 04:02 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	Yeah, Clinton didn't "back" or expand the war on drugs at all did he . So much for that theory.

Jun 21, 2004, 04:19 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	he spoke about reducing penalties for possession during his second term. unfortunately, i don't know all the details. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Jun 21, 2004, 05:30 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
KSoDBartman Guest Posts: n/a	What, do I have to list my opinion on every single topic that ever existed from the Precambrian Era to now in order to keep you people from making asses of yourselves and assuming things when you have no facts to support that assumption? If you do not know what I think of Bush there is a simple way of finding out without looking like a jackass: ASK ME. I implied NOTHING about my opinion about Bush in my posts here. The "implication" was your own ASSumption.