Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3303)	12/23/2016 12:21:39 PM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Recommended By James Seagrove one_less Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 357776

Several amendments have been weakened over time by the Courts. Particularly, Search & Seizure, over time, offers little protection to a person who is "suspected" of marijuana possession. If one does not acquiesce to a warrantless search, a dog will be brought in to deliver almost immediate "suspicion" followed by a full on search. It is coercion to allow a search, IMO. Only a couple years ago the Court decided to allow strip-searches of persons who aren't even suspected of carrying contraband, regardless of crime, if they are going into a jail for unrelated reasons. Now, you and I can see times where you would want to do that. So, the Court just took away the right. Not how this is supposed to work. I'm sure the Congress does it, too -- but I feel the Court has gone just too far on some essential liberties. That is not to say a left-leaning court would have done better; it probably would just tinker with other parts of it. It is what they do.

To: Lane3 who wrote (3303)	12/31/2016 12:45:35 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Recommended By Lane3 Respond to of 357776

Better wording might be "courts have failed to protect the bill of rights", or "courts have allowed for the weakening of the bill of rights". In one sense it is the court weakening it, if they allow infringements on it, and esp. if they create new legal doctrines and interpretations that weaken it for future cases. But its normally the legislature or the executive who actually enfringes on rights. A court could do so through a court order that is abusive and constitutionally dubious, but mostly on these types of issues they get to decide whether to allow the infringement of rights by other branches of the government to stand.