Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On
"...citing the third-party doctrine established by the Supreme Court's 1979 decision in Smith v. Maryland."
That is his job as a judge - to cite law that is already established by the Supreme Court. It is NOT his job to WRITE law, which he did not do.
Good grief.
|
You did not read the whole thing. He stated EVEN IF it was a search (that is, EVEN IF we dismiss the third party doctrine as being relevant), it is still justified.
Here's a quote directly from his opinion which I linked above:
Government demonstrates a sufficient “special need” – that is,
a need beyond the normal need for law enforcement – that
outweighs the intrusion on individual liberty. Examples
include drug testing of students, roadblocks to detect drunk
drivers, border checkpoints, and security screening at airports.
A genuine constitutionalist understands that the constitution is the "supreme law of the land". Which means that searches without warrant and probable cause are illegal, P.E.R.I.O.D.
You mentioned "judges aren't supposed to make law", yet that is exactly what he maintains. "The court said we can change this piece of the constitution, so we are bound to uphold that."
BTW, where does the Constitution authorise courts to "uphold or strike down law" to begin with? The old Marbury vs Madison scam is something you "conservatives" never seem to want to touch?
The whole system is rigged, with Big Government Liberals on Team Blue and Big Government Conservatives on Team Red, and all the little kids being duped into thinking it's real, not realising both Teams are run by the same Entertainment Corporation. WWE Politics-As-Usual.
But that's okay. America will learn. The beatings (and betrayals) will continue until enough people finally understand. And then, we will either turn to God, or perish.
Threaded Mode
