Reflections From a Murky Pond

The US Supreme Court has dealt Obama, his Liberals, and the illegal immigrant filth and their treasonous enablers a serious, though sadly non-fatal blow. The SCOTUS has, in a 5 – 3 decision, upheld Arizona’s illegal-worker law, the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007.

It has been dubbed the “Business Death Penalty” because it allows Arizona to shutdown businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

Specifically it allows Arizona to suspend the business license of any company that knowingly hires illegal immigrants for a minimum of 10 days upon the first offense and permanently upon the second or later offense. It also mandates that companies must use the federal governments E-Verify system to validate hirees’ employment eligibility.

This is the true beginning of immigration reform – real immigration reform – because it strikes at the festering core of illegal immigration by punishing those within America who enable, aid, abet, and profit off of these criminal foreign invaders.

Related Reading:

In an Eight to One decision the United States Supreme Court upheld the earlier appeals court ruling and sided with Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church in the case of Snyder v Ph elps. The $5 million judgment against them has been nullified.

Justice Samuel Alito was the lone though very passionate dissenter, as was to be expected.

In a nutshell the SCOTUS’ ruling once again confirmed that unpopular speech and/or expression – Phelps’ brood’s rantings are about as unpopular as it gets – is protected by the 1st Amendment of America’s constitution. They further, by their ruling, in effect reiterated that people cannot use tort law to circumvent the constitutional limitations upon criminal law.

We, the People cannot allow the government at any level to enact laws that curtail freedom of speech by the People, nor can we allow judges to use lawsuits and punitive damages to do the same. Allowing such would lead to greater lasting harm than anything that the Westboro traitors could achieve on their own.

As much as allowing Phelps’ brood of traitors to continue their attacks upon America’s military and military dependents sickens and outrage me, the SCOTUS arrived at the only right decision.

If Americans want to solve for the problem of Westboro Baptist Church and the Phelps brood, then we’re going to have to do it in an extra-judicial manner.  Preferably this should be done in a manner that sends a clear message to any other domestic enemies that would attack our troops and their families in this or any other manner.

Sadly, I don’t think we have the courage and conviction anymore to do this as it would need to be done; we’re too squeamish to enact a pogrom of rape, mutilation, and murder against them with an emphasis on targeting their women, children, and grandchildren, and we’re far too cowardly to sacrifice ourselves up to the law when finished.

So Westboro won 8-1 in the SCOTUS and will continue to win the privilege of attacking our troops and their dependents because we, the People won’t put aside our sensitivities and do what is necessary to put a stop to their atrocities.

Related Reading:

The California Supreme Court ruled on Monday, January 3, 2011 that the police do not need to obtain a warrant prior to searching a cell phone owned by someone who is currently under arrest. Such searches were ruled legal under the prevailing legal precedents surrounding Searches Incident to Arrest.

Legally this was the right call and decision.

It’s also, however, a decision that has scared and angered a number of people, for variety of knee-jerk, self-serving, and some valid reasons respectively, since the shifts in technology have lured many people into storing vast amounts of private information within their mobile devices.

We granted review in this case to decide whether the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution permits law enforcement officers, approximately 90 minutes after lawfully arresting a suspect and transporting him to a detention facility, to conduct a warrantless search of the text message folder of a cell phone they take from his person after the arrest. We hold that, under the United States Supreme Court’s binding precedent, such a search is valid as being incident to a lawful custodial arrest. We affirm the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

– Supreme Court of California
The People v. Gregory Diaz (S166600)

The police have the legal right, as affirmed multiple times by the SCOTUS, to search anything on the person of- or in the immediate control of anyone that they arrest without the requirement of obtaining any form of warrant to do so. Any evidence found during such searches is admissible in court and is not limited to such as is pertinent to the charges that the arrestee was originally detained for.

The previous SCOTUS opinions on: Harris v. United States (1947), United States v. Rabinowitz (1950), and Chimel v. California (1969) even extend this right of search and seizure to the room in which the suspect is arrested within – Chimel being a limiting factor since the Court held that the seizure of the entire contents of a house and its removal to FBI offices 200 miles away for examination, pursuant to an arrest under warrant of one of the persons found in the house, was unreasonable.

None of this is new; this is settled law. What is new is the amount of type of data that people carry on their persons and which is therefor subject to warrantless search in the event of their arrest.

Related Reading: