How can they make mincemeat out of Alitio when Shumer and Rahm are forcing anti-choice newly converted dEMS (ie Republicans) in every race they can get their hands on?

This is totally a fucking farce...

I guess Harry is still "keeping his powder dry".

As a red stater, you are the expert on kool-ade -- especially since you prefer "truthiness" to facts. If you weren't so lazy, you'd follow those links and read their sources. Of course, since you're determined not to believe anything you already don't presume to be true, that would be a lost cause, wouldn't it?

The strip search of the 10 year old girl did not call for a search of the occupants, just the premises. That was the issue. Of course, realizing that would require actual reading skills on your part, which you seem to be lacking.

As for what I did when Clinton increased police state powers, you wouldn't know, would you, as this blog did not exist then. In fact, no blogs existed then. But then, that doesn't stop you from going after Clinton. He's been out of power for 5 years now, but you're still obsessed with him. Why is that? Because you weren't getting blown, too?

Oh, and where is your proof that Clinton did secret wiretaps without court approval. The secret court was established 30 years ago, and all the reports I've seen is that only Bush the Lesser has considered himself above the law to the point that he'll even sign a law and then declare he is above it.

It sounds like you need to read up on J Edgar Hoover, too. He's your kinda guy. But your crocodile tears for MLK, Jr. are touching. Really. I'm so moved!

Your 4th amendment lesson is laughable.

You might want to read up on the Bill of Rights, though. The people have rights not explicitly given to the government. That's the thing you wingnuts seem to not get. It really is an appalling lapse on your part, considering all your talking points about "strict constructionists." In fact, attempts to enforce bans on abortion didn't happen until the 20th century, and no laws were even passed until late in the 19th century. When the country was founded, state control of women's wombs was unthinkable -- even though women did not have the right to vote.

Now you go off about "life". What is life? Ever swat a fly?

Finally, wingnutter, you really need to get the concept of group sites through your closed mind. There are several people posting here. You can try to lump us all together, but you're just making a fool of yourself.

I hope this reponse got you a good erection. Be sure to wipe off the screen before you try to read more. It might help your reading comprehension.

If I thought you were aware of the intrinsic issue in the search of the child, warrant vs affadavit, it might be entertaining... to ... but nah. Not with you.

I think Media Girl is rather too kind to you. You come here unprepared, linkless, basically a proud knuckle dragger (and they are everywhere, in every group from blue to red and back again, so chill big boy) and from the foaming or spewing at your site you are a sort of five and dime version of an outside agitator.

I'd ban your dull ass... but LOL I just post to the FP and am a guest myself....

I DEMAND better trolls!! Red Stater is sub standard!!

Oh and I am not throwing Byrd out to suit you. You all petted and pruned Strom, who spent most weekends the last years in hospital (hydrate that buzzard!) so he could be wheeled back in on Monday to vote... or Jesse who spewed racism every day of his life, they never renounced anything.

wow, do you guys get assignments of blogs to haunt?

Where to start? OH, how about Doe v. Groody, where the majority held:

Our decision is fully consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Groh. There, considering a warrant that failed to specify items to be seized in a [**30] house that was being searched, the Court dismissed the contention that omission of this description was not clearly unconstitutional, or a good faith error. Rather, the Court

stated: "As we observed in the companion case to Shepherd, 'a warrant may be so facially deficient ---- i.e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized ---- that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid."' Groh, 540 U.S. at , 157 L. Ed. 2d at 1083 (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 923).

The flaw here was every bit as manifest as the omission in the warrant in Groh.

Finally, even if an exception to the warrant requirement did apply, it is clear that the search of Jane and Mary Doe for evidence had to be based on probable cause, and not on a generalized concern that those present at a search might hide evidence. That principle was established as early as 1979. Ybarra, 444 U.S. at 94--96. Searching Jane and Mary Doe for evidence beyond the scope of the warrant and without probable cause violated their clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. Accordingly, we will affirm the decision of the District Court rejecting [**31] qualified immunity for the searches, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Second, I'm no fan of Bill Clinton. As far as I'm concerned, ESPECIALLY when it comes to trade issues and privacy concerns, he's a fucking Republican. My party has been highjacked by southerners who have been dragging it further and further to YOUR odious end of the political spectrum. However, there is a strong argument that he acted within the statutes at the time. I have mixed feelings about it, but I'll repeat, Clinton in NO liberal and NO friend of civil liberties. I know that you will knee-jerk defend any evil, nasty and illegal thing that your party does, but I believe that the actual Constitution is more important than political party or expedience. In fact, I'm no big fan of the leaders of EITHER of our political parties when it comes to Civil Liberties, and I think the entire institutional framework at the DC level is rotten to the core on this issue. Something that maybe ALL of the citizens of this country should demand changes on, don'tcha think? It's funny how upset folk like you were about Waco and OK City, but you rush to defend your pet tyrant when he expands Presidential Powers even further. This would make it plain that it's not the INFRINGEMENTS that bother you, but merely who does them. This hypocracy renders questionable your right to quote the Constitution, since you plainly hold it in little regard.

Your next line about "calling known al Quaeda" members begs the question, and is not persuasive as to why your Dear Leader couldn't work within the boundaries of FISA.

Another straw man about not finding abortion in the constitution. Lots of terrible things in the Constitution, like counting black Americans as three fifths of a person. Lots of things left out. However, there is this pesky thing called the Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, Law is an evolving thing, and determined by the demands of the people. Since women didn't count really as people back then, rather as property, it's no wonder that their needs were ignored. I'm sure if you and your ilk have your way we'll go back to those happy days of high infant mortality, high maternity mortality and shortened life expectancies. You quote the founding documents, but plainly attribute none of the promises in them to women. No suprise.

Nice one about Byrd, who renounced that membership so many times I'm sick of hearing about it. For a political movement that elevates drunkards, cokeheads and securities fraudsters to the height of your party, it's amazing how selective Republican's belief in redemption is.

I don't call you a nazi, just an idiot.