positive 4th amendment decision from SCOTUS

[BeltBuckle]

http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/17/supreme-court-rules-against-warrantless

Sotomayor voting with the majority to strike down unlawful search/seizure of blood samples from suspected DUI.

I don't like drunk drivers, but I like 4A violations less. I'm hoping this augurs well for 2A as well.... but I could be wrong...

 

[john_bud]

http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/17/supreme-court-rules-against-warrantless

Sotomayor voting with the majority to strike down unlawful search/seizure of blood samples from suspected DUI.

I don't like drunk drivers, but I like 4A violations less. I'm hoping this augurs well for 2A as well.... but I could be wrong...

"rights" given to obvious CRIMINALS are protected. Felons are exempt from gun background checks by SC ruling as it would violate their 5th A protection of self incrimination. But average Joe wanting to sell his old 22lr pistol to a buddy.... not protected at all!

At least according to Liberals and Democrats.

 

[LongTom]

http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/17/supreme-court-rules-against-warrantless

Sotomayor voting with the majority to strike down unlawful search/seizure of blood samples from suspected DUI.

I don't like drunk drivers, but I like 4A violations less. I'm hoping this augurs well for 2A as well.... but I could be wrong...

Sotomayor actually did her damn job? What the heck is going on, here, and why did she decide to actually recognize the Bill of Rights, all of a sudden?

OH WAIT, of course she did, because this could affect all the illegals she wants to protect.

 

[RoccoRP87]

Leftist judges like Sotomayor only care about the bill of rights when it garners them Marxist Points. The constitution doesn't apply for conservatives or libertarians.

 

[BeltBuckle]

"rights" given to obvious CRIMINALS are protected. Felons are exempt from gun background checks by SC ruling as it would violate their 5th A protection of self incrimination. But average Joe wanting to sell his old 22lr pistol to a buddy.... not protected at all!

At least according to Liberals and Democrats.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying we should allow police to set aside the presumption of innocence, and forcibly extract blood samples from citizens without their permission? If so, wtf happened to "secure in their persons and effects"?

IMHO. the fact that statists are willing to disregard and trample on the 2nd, does not mean it's ok for them to do the same to the 4th, 5th, etc. etc. In my book, any day the Court protects citizens (drunk or sober) from overweening and intrusive state actions something good has happened.