Dope-Sniffing Dogs (and their Law Enforcement owners) get their day in the United States Supreme Court

The so-called “conservative,” or Republican justices are showing their true colors.

Welcome to their police state.

—

Drug-Sniffing Dogs Have Their Day in Court as Justices Hear 2 Arguments

By ADAM LIPTAK

October 31, 2012

WASHINGTON — In back-to-back arguments about drug-sniffing dogs, the Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed open to limiting their use outside homes but not near cars.

The first argument concerned Franky, a chocolate Labrador retriever who detected the smell of marijuana outside a Florida house. The police obtained a warrant to search the house based on Franky’s signal, and they found a marijuana-growing operation inside.

The court’s four liberal justices all asked questions that were skeptical of allowing dogs to sniff around near homes without probable cause. They were joined by one of the court’s conservatives, Justice Antonin Scalia, who sometimes staked out positions more protective of homeowners’ privacy than the lawyer for the defendant in the case.

The Supreme Court has said the privacy of the home is at the core of what is protected by the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches. Justice Scalia is the author of the majority opinions in both a 5-to-4 decision in 2001 limiting the use of thermal-imaging technology to peer into homes and a unanimous ruling in January, on varying rationales, limiting the use of GPS tracking devices on cars.

Justice Scalia’s opinion in the second case was based on

To send $25 to the political candidate of your choice, text “GO” to 43468

Here’s your WTF moment.

It’s not as if our nation doesn’t have enough problems already with unlimited political donations, Super PACs, and the concern for the influx of money from foreign concerns – although, SCOTUS justice Samuel Alito mouthed otherwise during the 2010 State of the Union address given by President Obama.

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens – in a speech at the University of Arkansas – said that,

“[T]he Court must then explain its abandonment of, or at least qualify its reliance upon, proposition that the identity of the speaker is an impermissible basis for regulating campaign speech,” Stevens said Wednesday night, according to prepared remarks. “It will be necessary to explain why the First Amendment provides greater protection to the campaign speech of some non-voters than to that of other non-voters.”

He further noted that the court’s majority opinion in the Citizens United case, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, specifically did NOT address the possibility that foreign entities could bankroll U.S. elections.

There are – believe it, or else – Supreme Court Justices with level heads. One of them is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She petitioned the SCOTUS to reconsider the Citizens United case, arguing that by granting certiorari, it “will give the court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.”

If you think we have difficulty tracing campaign contributions now, just wait.

Now, the Federal Election Commission is about to open wide the doors to…

—

FEC Poised to Allow Campaign Donations Via Texts

June 7, 2012, 5:10 PM, By Amy Schatz

Giving money to political candidates could soon be just a few taps away, thanks to federal campaign-finance officials who are close to approving a plan to allow political donations via text message.

Several Federal Election Commission commissioners signaled their interest in approving a plan from two political consulting firms to allow campaigns to accept donations via text message at a meeting Thursday.
The FEC rejected a similar wireless industry proposal to allow text message donations two years ago but