Yep, I knew TSA airport screenings were just the tip of the iceberg. Bet they'll be employing this new law on the OWS protesters. The Supreme Court Justices abused their power when they handed the election to Bush. They'll probably do the same thing with the AHCA and now further violating the 4th amendment. How long will people be complacent?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/02/supr.../#disqus_thread

Supreme Court signs off on strip searches for all arrestees

Going forward from this week on, people arrested in the United States may face a mandatory strip search, even if their offense is minor and authorities don’t suspect them of smuggling any contraband.

That’s because U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy sided with the court’s conservatives on Monday, swinging the vote 5-4 in favor of allowing jail officials to conduct a strip search of anyone in their custody.

Those searches may now even be carried out on people who’ve only committed minor offenses like traffic violations or small drug possession, and in cases where there is nothing that meets the previous standard of “reasonable suspicion” that someone may be hiding something.

In its opinion (PDF), the court’s majority suggested that strip searches would make inmate populations safer by helping to stem the tide of drugs and weapons, and healthier by identifying early on inmates with injuries or infectious diseases.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the court’s dissenting minority, argued that strip searches are a “serious affront to human dignity and to individual privacy,” which should only be used when absolutely necessary.

“I have found no convincing reason indicating that, in the absence of reasonable suspicion, involuntary strip searches of those arrested for minor offenses are necessary in order to further the penal interests mentioned,” he added. “And there are strong reasons to believe they are not justified.”

Monday’s decision sprang from the 2005 arrest of New Jersey resident Albert Florence. Florence was arrested after an officer pulled over his wife for speeding, only to discover that he had a warrant for an unpaid fine. After spending seven days in two different jails, being strip searched upon admittance at both, he was released after officials figured out that he’d already paid the fine.

Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority that Florence’s detention at the Burlington County Detention Center and the Essex County Correctional Facility “struck a reasonable balance between inmate privacy and the needs of the institutions” — which is to say, the court believes that inmates are entitled to virtually no right to privacy when that challenges the more pressing safety issues presented by managing a prison population.

anyone who voted for Perot, Nader or Bush got what they asked for.

100% vote for democrats or those that will vote with democrats only.

Another one vote case where the four Democratic appointed justices favored liberty and the five Republican appointed justices did not. The only thing we can do is make sure a Democrat stays in the White House for the next 8-12 years and wait for these right wing justices to retire.

“In our system, there’s no intermediate step between a definitive Supreme Court decision and violent revolution.” -- Al Gore

FYI Clay -

A vote for Perot still benefitted Clinton, and I didn't vote for Nader and Bush, so what are you whining about?

Since I try to abide by the law (unless mouthing off become illegal :D ), then I'm not too worried about being strip searched, but I do worry about others. I would think you would too.

Well, I agree with you that the conservative appointed justices don't side with liberty. I just wish democrats all the way around would choose liberty over oppression and tyranny.

According to Gore, that doesn't leave a lot of latitude in between. And it shouldn't be that way.

Perot was a far right wing leaning person nowhere near a democrat or liberal

while yes, a democrat won because of him, Perot stopped the person he personally wanted to stop from winning, and in doing so, Clinton had the problem of not being a 50%er, so right from the start people said he was not voted in by America, just had the most votes.

3 don't go into 2.

Perot ran as an independent - not a republican - and had some moderate views. He was an alternative to the establishment candidates. You know, it's amazing to go back and look at where his support came from....

From Wiki: "A detailed analysis of voting demographics revealed that Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates. Economically, however, the majority of Perot voters (57%) were middle class, earning between $15,000 and $49,000 annually, with the bulk of the remainder drawing from the upper middle class (29% earning more than $50,000 annually).[35] Exit polls also showed that Ross Perot drew 38% of his vote from Bush, and 38% of his vote from Clinton, while the rest of his voters would have stayed home had he not been on the ballot.[36]"


And while he had issues with things that Reagan and Bush did, I believe he was in the race to win - but I think he was sabotaged.

One thing I noticed (that I did not remember) when reading his wiki page is that he endorsed Mitt Romney over McCain. I don't like either one, but I especially don't like Romney. It sounds like Perot's business perspective has changed in the last 10 years or so. I'm not sure I'd support a candidacy of the Ross Perot of today, based on how he is described now. But he's had some good qualities during his life, such as being a good family man who cared about his employees. It remains to be seen what kind of President he would have made.

you really bought into his fan club image of him didn't you???

Ross Perot was the money
Every one of his employees worked for him
He did not work for them

and you say he ran as an "independent" not a republican
imagine that, a politician that lied
yes, ross lied.

and that wiki recap is just so perfect and clean.
sort of like how they led America in 2000 to believe there was a full count and two recounts and how Gore "lost"

yeah, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I got for sale

and I bet Ross Perot would have liked tax cuts for the rich.
I can't see how he would have been effective as President...he would have had zero people in the house and senate backing him, so what incentive would they work for him?

Once and for all can we end the myth that Perot helped elect Clinton in '92. That is just a GOP talking point.

http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

http://www.salon.com/2010/04/02/dan_quayle...ot_for_clinton/

If hypocrisy were a sandwich, you would choke on it, Clay. Sometimes I just have to shake my head when I read some of the stuff you post, seeing as how you are in the Charlie Crist fan club. :rolleyes:

There's no question that Perot is a rich man but I also know someone personally who's husband used to work for Perot and she said Perot was very good to his employees.

As I've said before, a presidential candidate can say one thing and do quite another as President. Who knows what kind of President Perot would have made. If he had cut taxes for the rich, and turned around and supported things like NAFTA after having been against it, then I would have been very disappointed in him. But at the time, he seemed to walk the walk on things that he said. It might be a different story these days.

Speaking of buying into things, I sure bought into Obama too. I thought he was the real deal. But, he protects the corporations just like every other mainstream politician. I guess it's just too much to hope for that there are really honest candidates out there. So what's the alternative to optimism? Despair?

And did you know that the claim that Perot helped Clinton get elected is a GOP talking point? I sure didn't. I keep hearing you call Perot an ultra right wing candidate. I never saw him that way. I think many people saw him as an anti-establishment candidate, down to Earth, good values guy. But after seeing that he took an equal amount of votes from Clinton and Bush, I guess that blows the claim that a 3rd party candidate always hands the election to one side or the other, such as was blamed on the Nader factor. It was the Supreme Court that handed the election to Bush. <_<