Well done to the Supreme Court.

[kentonio]

Why should busting criminals be easy? You could make it REALLY easy and just monitor the movements of everyone inside a country 24/7, would that be a good thing?

[Dauphin]

so why are you happy with this ruling?

the court has just made it harder to bust criminals

The ruling also commented on this. They point to the fact that you can get a warrant in less than fifteen minutes - by fax or by e-mail.

"Recent technological advances similar to those discussed here have, in addition, made the process of obtaining a warrant itself more efficient. See McNeely, 569 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 11–12); id., at ___ (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (slip op., at 8) (describing jurisdiction where “police officers can e-mail warrant requests to judges’ iPads [and] judges have signed such warrants and e-mailed them back to officers in less than 15 minutes”). "

[Sava]

so why are you happy with this ruling?

I'm not happy. Why would you think I'm happy?

[Dinner]

It's nice to see them occasionally get one right. Five of them still need to be hanged for their crimes against the people wrt the Citizens United case.

[Felch]

Five of them still need to be hanged for their crimes against the people wrt the Citizens United case.

I realize that Oerdin is always wrong, but how can anybody not grasp that Citizens United was just exercising their freedom of speech?

The case came down to the FEC wanting to prevent a private group from advertising a movie critical of a politician, because it was too close to an election. If you think it's wrong to criticize a politician before an election, then congratulations, you're a ****ing tool.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I realize that Oerdin is always wrong, but how can anybody not grasp that Citizens United was just exercising their freedom of speech?

The case came down to the FEC wanting to prevent a private group from advertising a movie critical of a politician, because it was too close to an election. If you think it's wrong to criticize a politician before an election, then congratulations, you're a ****ing tool.

For Oerdin it depends on which side of the aisle they are.

[Sava]

I realize that Oerdin is always wrong, but how can anybody not grasp that Citizens United was just exercising their freedom of speech?

The case came down to the FEC wanting to prevent a private group from advertising a movie critical of a politician, because it was too close to an election. If you think it's wrong to criticize a politician before an election, then congratulations, you're a ****ing tool.

If you think Citizen's United had anything to do with actual* freedom (*not bull**** freedom like the freedom to murder) YOU are the ****ing tool.

[Felch]

If you think Citizen's United had anything to do with actual* freedom (*not bull**** freedom like the freedom to murder) YOU are the ****ing tool.

Does actual freedom include organizing with like-minded people to film and release a political documentary a few weeks before an election? The FEC held that if you advocated for or against a specific candidate that you were breaking the law. Don't tell me you're on their side.

[Hauldren Collider]

Citizens United was such an obvious ruling that it's terrifying and frankly surprising it wasn't 9-0. We're talking about a law that explicitly banned political speech.

[Sava]

Does actual freedom include organizing with like-minded people to film and release a political documentary a few weeks before an election? The FEC held that if you advocated for or against a specific candidate that you were breaking the law. Don't tell me you're on their side.

Buying commercial time on TV isn't a right, it's a privilege... at least in my mind.

Frankly, the government should be charging fair market value to media companies. Whatever they are paying, it isn't enough.

[Sava]

Also, neither one of you give two shits about the rights of other people. So give it a rest.

[Felch]

Buying commercial time on TV isn't a right, it's a privilege... at least in my mind.

Freedom of speech is a right. If your mind can't grasp that, then you are wrong.

Frankly, the government should be charging fair market value to media companies. Whatever they are paying, it isn't enough.

That has nothing to do with the Citizens United decision. Do you even have half a clue what the case was about?

Also, neither one of you give two shits about the rights of other people. So give it a rest.

You have no right to silence political discourse. So give it a rest.

[Sava]

Freedom of speech is a right.

Yes. Sadly, buying commercial time isn't "speech".

It's a business transaction.

Regarding the sale of PUBLIC AIRWAVES

Stick to guns and weed. Your arguments ring truer when you care about them.

That has nothing to do with the Citizens United decision. Do you even have half a clue what the case was about?

Agree. That point didn't have anything to do with CU. That's why it's a separate paragraph. You see, formatting can be used to draw a clear distinction between two ideas... similar to punctuation.

You have no right to silence political discourse. So give it a rest.

When "political discourse" happens, you let me know.

[Felch]

Yes. Sadly, buying commercial time isn't "speech".

Of course it is. What else could it possibly be?

Agree. That point didn't have anything to do with CU.

So what'd you bring it up for? Were you changing the subject because you knew you were wrong? Why not discuss the weather or the World Cup?

When "political discourse" happens, you let me know.

Citizens United made a movie critical of a political candidate. If it wasn't "political discourse" the FEC wouldn't have blocked it. The idea that the government can stifle political debate because it is political is a completely against the letter and intent of the First Amendment. Only a blindly partisan fool like Oerdin or a liar like you could possibly oppose the Citizens United decision.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jeez Louise, take it somewhere else. Not every SCOTUS thread has to turn into a rehash of the Citizen's United decision!