Federal Court: Massachusetts Law Against Recording Of On-The-Job Cops Is Unconstituti

If you want to argue about the fundamental ability of the supreme court to provide judicial review around Mulberry v. Madison, I am game. But, in the end, that will not change the courts ruling or how it is implement under the laws of the United States.

However, the basis of the argument presented to the SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade was one founded in the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut and right of a person's reasonable expectation to privacy.

In your equivocation example of a serial killer, the act of murdering some is no where near reasonable. As indicated by upper and lower courts, abortion is not murder. That is unless you feel that scraping the cells of the inside of inner lining of your cheek is also murder.
 
Well, I made a post where I outlined some of the arguments made in favor it, but I made it very clear that I was just explaining the other side's argument (because someone had said something along the lines of, "I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise").

So you might be thinking of me.


But Joe_Cool, at times, has some batshit insane views, so it could have been him.
 
You got this a little backwarRAB, squirt.

If Judge Cool were not an advocate of privacy, then he would necessarily be a-okay with filming police officers ... because they have no privacy. By suggesting that Judge Cool should not be expected to be okay with this ruling, you are suggesting that Judge Cool believes that the officers have a right to privacy, which is inconsistent with your comment that Judge Cool does not support privacy.


It is only the advocates of privacy that debate this issue. The consensus, it seems, is that officers have no expectation of privacy in public. I, personally, would take it a step further and say that in the absence of recording the actions of officers, a victim of police misconduct has no recourse, and therefore officers should never have an expectation of privacy, whether in public or otherwise, while performing official police duties.
 
How about you answer my questions?

Okay, so you think that right at conception, it is a distinct individual human life, correct? And as such you think it should be awarded the same protections as a toddler walking down the street with their mom, yes?
 
I'm not saying it's a fully enfranchised US citizen that gets to vote and collect welfare. I'm saying - correctly - that it IS human, it IS alive, and it IS a distinct entity from the mother.

If you want to argue that it's ok to kill it because it hasn't passed the birth canal, fine, we can discuss that. But trying to argue that it's not a human life and nothing is being killed is retarded. It's a copout.
 
I'm done arguing about abortion in this abortion of a thread, though. If you want to keep arguing, make a new thread.

I do agree that people should be free to record cops in the performance of their duties, though.
 
Back
Top