Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
26. IMO, Scalia's decision in D.C. v Heller was one of his few 'stopped clock' moments.
Sun Apr 26, 2020, 04:58 PM
Apr 2020

I generally found Scalia to be reactionary at best, and if not an actual crypto-facist, at least "fascist adjacent"
Approval of an action by a person does not imply a character reference for that person-

at least for those not fond of ad hominem arguments...

A question for you:

Do you reject the USSC holding in United States v Jones merely because Scalia wrote it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

In 2004 defendant Jones was suspected of drug trafficking. Police investigators asked for and received a warrant to attach a GPS tracking device to the underside of the defendant's car but then exceeded the warrant's scope in both geography and length of time. The Supreme Court justices voted unanimously that this was a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, although they were split 5-4 as to the fundamental reasons behind that conclusion. The majority held that by physically installing the GPS device on the defendant's car, the police had committed a trespass against Jones' "personal effects" – this trespass, in an attempt to obtain information, constituted a search per se...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones#Majority_opinion

Justice Antonin Scalia authored the majority opinion.


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Judge Tosses California Ammunition Purchase Law [View all] friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 OP
Any act of public policy which increases Frasier Balzov Apr 2020 #1
Feh- that was also the meme used to sell Proposition 8- 'preventing societal harm' friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #4
Voluntary marriage? Voluntary consumption of alcohol? Frasier Balzov Apr 2020 #6
That fact that a Constitutional right is unpopular in certain polities doesn't make it non-existant friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #9
The act in question is part of the 2016 California Proposition 63 discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2020 #8
Nothing prevents the 2A from being correctly interpreted. Frasier Balzov Apr 2020 #12
Your use of the phrase "correctly interpreted" spoke Loudly to me, so I did a little research friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #15
A bully who loves guns. Frasier Balzov Apr 2020 #20
Winkling out deceit is hardly bullying, and I own no guns. Try again... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #22
Do share that interpretation. discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2020 #21
They have already stated what sort of interpretation they'd like: friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #23
So without the violation of rights 16% of the time, would the law be acceptable? discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2020 #28
So of the people it inconvenienced thucythucy Apr 2020 #2
Try again- this bit of performative security theater inconvenienced *everybody*... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #3
But more than four fifths of those "inconvenienced" thucythucy Apr 2020 #5
You are misinterpreting the sentence. ManiacJoe Apr 2020 #7
Your defense of this security theater is sincere, but misplaced for these reasons: friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #10
Admittedly, the fact that some juresdictions are lackadaisical thucythucy Apr 2020 #11
Lots of things have been restricted for ostensibly being 'dangerous to public safety' friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #13
I consider bullets and firearms to be in an altogether different realm thucythucy Apr 2020 #14
Unless and until it is repealed, the Second Amendment exists, and is law friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #16
Which is the inevitable go-to argument thucythucy Apr 2020 #17
How about "Roe v Wade said it, I believe it, that settles it!"? That work for you? friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #18
In the meantime, I suggest California gun owners minimize the effect of this law by... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #19
There are compelling reasons why I am pro-choice, thucythucy Apr 2020 #25
IMO, Scalia's decision in D.C. v Heller was one of his few 'stopped clock' moments. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2020 #26
To answer your question-- thucythucy Apr 2020 #27
And to further the controversy... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2020 #24
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Judge Tosses California A...»Reply #26