Well done to the Supreme Court.

[N35t0r]

Who's this "we"? I was addressing Kent.

Ken and I?

[The Mad Monk]

No, just Kent.

[Ben Kenobi]

Spamming in response to an obvious troll only makes it grow stronger, Ben.

Someone put a lot of time in crafting it.

[DinoDoc]

Someone put a lot of time in crafting it.

Not Sava.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This may be the best troll that has ever been done.

Sava

[Elok]

I only need one quote



So I'm saved
I'll try and carry as many of you as I can with me though

You misunderstand; according to the NT, you don't exist. Nor did LOTM. Furthermore, there was never any such person as "MarkG" or "Socrates."

[Tuberski]

Just to get it next to FVCK SCOTUS...

ACK!

[GePap]

Employers have rights too, gepap.

That is an utterly meaningless statement. "Rights" encompass a large host of legal privileges. The question is whether the specific set of Rights enumerated in the Constitution as belonging to citizens apply to corporate entities. It remains an absurdity to say that they do.

[Dr Strangelove]

What if the cell phone belongs to a terrorist and might contain a set of phone numbers to other terrorists or that may set off bombs? Shouldn't the police have the right to search that phone?

[Felch]

That is an utterly meaningless statement. "Rights" encompass a large host of legal privileges. The question is whether the specific set of Rights enumerated in the Constitution as belonging to citizens apply to corporate entities. It remains an absurdity to say that they do.

The First Amendment doesn't say that the rights belong to citizens. It describes categories of laws that Congress has no right to make.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What if the cell phone belongs to a terrorist and might contain a set of phone numbers to other terrorists or that may set off bombs? Shouldn't the police have the right to search that phone?

The police can easily get a warrant.

Here's a counter-scenario, one that's much more likely. What if the cell phone belongs to a jealous cop's ex-girlfriend, and he wants to know who she's been calling so that he can continue harassing her and her friends? Should he have blanket authority to examine the cell phone data, even without a warrant?

Furthermore, does the Fourth Amendment mean anything to you?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The US Constitution is a pretty short document, and the Bill of Rights is a small part of that. Please inform yourselves before saying dumb **** online. Thank you.

[kentonio]

Responding is not spamming. Unbunch your panties.

Anyone who needs 23 consecutive posts to 'respond' probably doesn't have anything worth saying. Obviously in Ben's case that's a given anyway.

[Dauphin]

Wait for molly to reply point by point.

[The Mad Monk]

Eeyep.

[N35t0r]

[MrFun]

In the next thread that TMM makes, I might make 20+ consecutive responses to others' posts, then maybe he will see how irritating and spammy it is.