I have no idea why Anthony Kennedy is called a swing vote - whenever an issue comes up that really matters, he's usually on the side of the old boys' network. And this time, he even wrote the majority opinion.

Per Kennedy: “One of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93.” So I presume he is arguing that allowing this suspect to be booked and strip searched at the county jail would have humiliated him enough to tip us off about 9/11?

It's easy to lose sight of how important the Supreme Court is. Fortunately, they're reminding us. This ruling on strip searches gives us a police state. No matter how small the risk, the authorities have carte blanche to violate individual rights. And what authorities, anywhere, will choose not to use this power? Next up: no health care for you!!

For me there is NO reason, none at all, EVER for me to vote for Obama. He IS the worst president in my lifetime (over 50 years) and I have no desire to see this ego maniac get four more years to finish ruining the country.

What's next, roadside strip searches for speeders?

Really? Really?? How easy would it be to game the system and get a gun, knife, drugs, whatever into the general population without this?

Native, what country are you talking about? What planet are you on?

Zonedar, please go and read the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution (or, I guess, have someone read it to you) and come back and discuss.

Just ask the nun, or the person who had is dog off leash, or the black man who was pulled over while driving HIS own BMW, all of whom were stripped searched.
For those people who think 'that will never happen to me' just remember the Russian gulags, the Nazi consentration camps, re-education camps or the Resettlement Centers for US citizens Japanese origin.
What parts of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights do these 5 SCOTUS justces not understand? All of them apparently.
I truly fear for these United States.

So my full body rubdown by some clown in a blue uniform yesterday at the airport really wasn't that bad! Thank goodness they didn't learn from "profiling" me as a lover of liberty that I never paid the parking ticket in Beverly Hills years ago.

In order to reduce the federal deficit, I propose replacing the Supreme Court with a Magic 8-ball.

Eeeek!

I'm at least slightly curious if Obama will be running. Until now I've found all of this annoying at best.

New news report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrQp6qSgX_I&feature=youtube

Full presentation of investigation results
http://bit.ly/HxN7AG

and snopes has it and optimization wrong

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp

Allan L -
My guess is that I'm a bit older than you. Here is my take, the dust bunny under my desk is better than Obama. And yes, I live on the same planet and in the same country as you (assuming you are in the USA).

So when you're under arrest and held in custody you don't lose a lot of your civil liberties, at least temporarily? My second amendment or rights to peaceably assemble are not suspended?

I'm not a constitutional lawyer but I doubt that any court thinks that fourth amendment rights are not seriously limited when a person's incarcerated.

Tell me how this would work if persons arrested and held in jails (even for petty offense) were not subject to searches?

I don't like this at all, but a key statement by Kennedy frames this for me:

“Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,”

Since we don't have an isolated cell for each person arrested, how do the police protect the others in the general population? Or perhaps the TSA scanners can be repurposed? I think this is the point that zonedar was alluding to. Innocent looking offenders could easily smuggle in contraband. We've read the many stories of useful items discovered in interesting body orifices.

Also, the justices did not rule that strip searches were mandatory, either.

Yes, the few bad eggs will use this ruling to justify their invasive and unnecessary searches, just to humiliate those arrested.

Honestly, Obama extending (and even making worse) a lot of the Bush administration policies regarding detention, Guantanimo, and the just plain silly changes to intellectual property/copyright laws would make me not vote for him this time around. Unfortunately, the others running for president seem like some of the dumbest people I have seen in politics in a long, long time. So I will hold my nose and vote for Obama again.

Obama strikes me as simply being a less friendly Jimmy Carter. I liked what he had to say when he was first running for the Democratic Primary in '08, but after Hillary dropped out, it seemed to me that he started turning into a completely different person. I didn't like who he became.

The one Republican I was really keen on was Huntsman. Seemed like a rational, moderate guy, but he got FOX Newsed into oblivion by the zany antics of goons like Romney, Santorum and Newt. I don't think I can bring myself to vote for either "major" candidate come November.

Like Jon above, I think DC politicians in both major parties are complicit. They're all shills who think the constitution is Kleenex. This latest is among the worst examples I've seen. Strip searching a nun for a leash law violation? Holy crap.

...I liked what he had to say when he was first running for the Democratic Primary in '08, but after Hillary dropped out, it seemed to me that he started turning into a completely different person. I didn't like who he became.

You mean to say that Obama had an Etch-a-Sketch™, too?

They all say one thing to get elected, and once elected fall-back to their real agenda. Recall Obama's hot-mike comment to Medvedev a few days back.

I doubt that any court thinks that fourth amendment rights are not seriously limited when a person's incarcerated.

Please have a trusted grown-up explain some of the words to you.

My guess is that I'm a bit older than you.

My first chance to vote in a national election was against Goldwater.

To see Obama as a worse President than George W. Bush, you would have to have an estranged relationship with reality.

I've read the opinion and don't have a problem with it. And I'll be voting for anyone other than Obama.

Allen,

Read the decision. There the grown-ups are explaining it...

Care to tell us how it would work in 'All(en)-lala land' where there are no searches of the incarcerated?

The Supremes are rigged just like our City Council. All they need is a majority, so a 5-4 vote makes it look like all we need is one more liberal justice and everything will swing to happy times.

Ha! Suckers! We are headed for a dollar collapse- probably around the fall before the election.

These changes in citizens rights are all about preparing to crack the whip on dissent once the next level of the take down happens.

We don't get a choice in the president, but if it makes you feel better - go ahead and believe it - I still believe in the Easter bunny.

Age does not necessarily lead to wisdom.

I think it would be a mistake for liberals to not vote for Obama over rulings like this one-- which basically requires that suspects be thoroughly searched when taken into custody-- but I hope they do.

Given a choice between your dog and Barry, I'll vote for your dog.

BTW: Back when Nixon was President (and I had longish hair), I was strip-searched when returning from Canada. Also in Stirling, Colorado, where I was busted for hitch-hiking.

The latter was especially interesting, as when I was moved upstairs to the third-floor cellblock and through the double set of gates, I was greeted by an affable-looking chap who asked what I was in for.

"Hitch-hiking. You?"
"Attempted murder."

Sweet. Good times....

I haven't read the opinion, but would have to say that strip-searching petty arrestees is way too much like the other heavy-handed BS that our benevolent government thinks its allowed to do these days.

But Jack, your Constitutional Law Expert Obama said yesterday that if a law is passed, the court needs to shut up and uphold it (relating to Obamacare), so I don't see how voting for him will do anything to slow down the assault on freedom. He seems to be leading the charge.

Ah come on folks, let's give Obama a chance finish what he started.
And if it appears that there isn't a snow-balls chance for that to happen . . . martial law can't be ALL that bad !

While I want to vote with the Clackastani Revolution folks because of their stance on light rail and urban renewal, I'm finding it difficult to vote their candidates in when they are represented by people like INFO here.

I gotta tell ya man, I find the background and info you supply here on the issues I mentioned above invaluable. You are reasoned, informative and rational. But then here comes the birther blather and I seriously have to question your credibility. And - whether it's right or wrong - the credibility and sanity of those you speak for here, i.e., the Clackastani Revolution candidates.

Is it too counterproductive to vote for the measures, but not for the candidates that are pushing them? Is it expecting too much to think liberal candidates will learn from their constituents when measures like these pass? Conversely, is it too much to ask conservative candidates to keep their eye on the ball and not think their election is a mandate to pursue ridiculous crap like this birther nonsense?

Now I'm virtually certain what your pseudonym used to be by your stance here on the birther issue, INFO. Maybe you should switch them up when you go off into right field like you did on this thread. I'm just a lowly ex-bartender, but this type of thing really makes me think twice about my vote. I don't think you're helping the cause. Just my two cents...

Ex-
Come on. I am not a birther and as I said I have found the issue annoying at best.
But I occasional watch or read odd or fringe things from various sides.
Someone sent me it and I reluctantly watched this new video and found it to be slightly less annoying and somewhat curious.
It is not my blather and I am not blathering it.
I was simply curious to see how others may view it. So please don't leap to any sweeping and wrong conclusions.

I have never heard any Clackistani discuss or "pursue" any crap like this birther nonsense.
I am not "pursuing" it either.

I got it, watched it and wondered what bojack people would think about it. That's all.
I found the crap far fetched and a very bizarre scenario.
One doesn't have to agree with something to think it is bizarre.
So rest easy my friend I haven't consumed any tainted elixir.

And I am certain the Clackistani Rebellion is stable, safe and sound.

Zonedar, any room in your thinking between "no searches" and "all searches"?

Well my mistake then and my apologies. As I alluded to at the end of my comment, I believe I know what pseudonym you used to post under here, and you and I had this birther conversation a while back so I didn't think I was jumping to conclusions. But I'll take you at your word now.

I'm sure it's no secret what this Bojack reader thinks about the whole birther nonsense. And sorry, I guess I still find this an odd topic upon which to broach the subject of that crazy conspiracy theory - along with links that try to give it credence. What's that got to with invasive body searches again?

I had just watched those and mostly thought it was a bit of a humorous twist to inject into the discussion that involved people trying to figure out if they would vote Obama again.
That's why I jokingly suggested he may not even be running.
"I'm at least slightly curious if Obama will be running".
It would indeed be bizarre. Like aliens landing.

I don't recall ever previously diving into the birther crap but I suppose I could have commented on some passing thought.

The whole thing is just too far fetched and those new links make it bizarre as ever with likely never any resolution to it.

Just like the others like 911 conspiracy videos or watching crop circle videos. :) Now there we go! Crop circles anyone?

Hey it's bipartisan.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/do-americans-actually-believe-life-exists-in-a-galaxy-far-far-away-67082082.html

Democrats vs. Republicans

* No filibuster here -- given the margin of error, Democrats and
Republicans are equally likely to believe in life on other planets

So there can be Clackistani Crop Circles and we can all stick together.

I did find this. More Ds believe in ghosts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2406817/posts

OK enough of all that. Jack is probably about to boot me.

Back to bashing our local governments.

Anybody that thinks cops do strip searches for enjoyment has not looked at the mug shots of the prisoners.

One of our Corrections Officers told us of one guy that did the "squat and cough" who immediately told the officers that the items that suddenly appeared were "not his".

It is amazing what people can secret about their person.

strip searches for enjoyment

Why would you think anybody would think that?

Anybody who thinks cops never punish suspects in custody has not looked at the mug shots of the officers. Or paid attention to the news.

If you were looking for a reason to vote for Obama again, this is pretty much all you need.

Here's a new twist on this: Some guy on 620 AM (Mike Medved?) just said Obama's justice department argued in favor of strip searches for any offense! Looks like BHO didn’t protect us any better than the Republicans.

And, we all know, if we heard it on liberal radio it is absolutely 100% correct. Always!

Thanks
JK

The "supreme court" has been pulling s#it of their asses and stuffing it up others' since John Marshall dumptrucked the law of nations and international treaties -- ginning up a phony term for the indigenous nations of this continent as "domestic dependent nations" so that land could continue to be stolen and those people wrongfully dispossessed of their homelands by the great white fathers.

Their body of legal fictions corrupts.

“It’s appalling that any president would have the effrontery to lecture the Supreme Court about a pending case. It’s astounding that this president, who was once a professor of constitutional law at an elite university, would do so in such an ignorant fashion.”

His former students are upset with the former adjunct instructor. Devalued their degree.

If Bush had said that the Court didn't have the ability to overturn one of his laws the liberal press would be screaming!

But since Obama is their prize baby, they can't quite get the words out can they?

Obama is just a typical Chicago thug politician. Nothing more. He fooled a lot of people with his ability to read a teleprompter. Some of those folks will stay fooled because they don't want to admit they fell for the act, but others are waking up.

Folks (Jack especially),

If you don't like this decision, you should know that Obama's DOJ argued IN FAVOR of it.
Educate yourself:
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/03/the_obama_doj_and_strip_searches/singleton/

Then realize how foolish you look:
http://vastleft.blogspot.com.br/2012/04/american-extremists-legally-bare.html

Anyone who still thinks Obama is a champion of civil liberties is not paying attention. The reason to reëlect him is not that. It's the kind of appointments the next President may make to the courts. On that subject, a comparison of Bush and Obama appointees is instructive, even on civil rights and liberties issues.

Andy, please give us the quoted statement of Obama saying the Supreme Court doesn't have the ability to overturn one of his laws, so that we can all join in the outrage.

We're not talking about Justice Department positions here. We're talking about Supreme Court justices. Obama's Supreme Court appointments are on the correct side of this one. Romney's people would be as awful as Clarence Thomas. And that's saying a lot.