Breaking: Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Major Pro-Privacy Right

After hearing evidence presented in two related cases, the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday decided that police officers must not be allowed to search the contents of a suspect’s mobile phone as a standard procedure without first securing a warrant to do so. This ruling stands in contrast to arguments made by the Obama administration, which suggest authorities should be allowed to view any and all personal information contained in increasingly advanced smartphones.

Those leaps in technological capabilities, however, are exactly why Chief Justice John Roberts believes cell phones should be off limits in a routine search.

“Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience,” he asserted. “With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans the privacies of life.”

Justices heard testimony from a variety of witnesses, including media representatives and libertarian advocates who contend that smartphones are basically personal, portable computers that should require a specific warrant prior to an officer’s invasion of such private data.

Roberts agreed, noting there is little similarity between traditional items – such as a pack of cigarettes – that an officer can search during an initial investigation and the huge cache of information contained in the average mobile phone.

He offered an analogy to transportation, noting that one could say that both a ride on a horse and in a rocket “are ways of getting from point A to point B; but little else justifies lumping them together.”

As Western Journalism reported, one of the cases leading to this decision resulted when a man’s home was searched after police determined from his cell phone that he might be involved in the sale of narcotics.

Ultimately, Brima Wurie appealed his conviction. Though an appeals court sided with him, another drug-related charge carrying a 20-year sentence was left intact. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision.

The other case presented prior to Wednesday’s decision involved a San Diego man who was linked to a number of crimes after police found evidence of gang involvement in his smartphone. Justices demanded the California Supreme Court to reopen the case against David Leon Riley.

Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service (Flickr)

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Was Roberts’ Obamacare Ruling A Blessing, Or A Curse?

Photo Credit: McConnell Center Creative Commons

When Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the Supreme Court’s Marxist bloc in ruling the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate constitutional, stunned conservatives immediately accused him of committing an “act of judicial cowardice.”  “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,” wrote the supremely hypocritical Roberts as he shattered one of the first rules of judicial restraint by rewriting sections of ObamaCare from the bench. Although he refused to “protect” the people from a wanton abuse of power,  he was more than willing to protect DC lawmakers from the consequences of passing unconstitutional legislation.

But did Roberts manufacture his creative penalty-is-really-a-tax revision of ObamaCare for the purpose of bailing out the lawmakers who wrote the Act? Or was it actually his intention to help destroy them?

American Thinker contributor Bill Dunne believes that in his ObamaCare ruling, the chief justice set a “diabolical trap” designed to imperil Democrats, even as it “saved the Republican Party from going into a death spiral…”

It is Dunne’s contention that Justice Roberts’ decision spawned a “Great Awakening” of the American people by making it clear to them that “…ObamaCare [was] a civics lesson from hell, with vast implications for America’s future.” Had the Chief Justice sided with court conservatives, the disastrous effects of the Affordable Care Act would have disappeared along with the law. The largest tax increase in American history would not be taking place. Millions would not have had healthcare policies cancelled due to ACA mandates; premiums would not have doubled–or worse–thanks in part to unwanted coverages; longtime family doctors would still be available to patients; a non-functioning, $600 million website would not threaten to transform average citizens into “scofflaws;” identity theft would not run rampant; and some semblance of a right to medical privacy might still exist for the American public.

But the most important consequence of Roberts’ ruling is the fact that millions of Americans finally understand that “…[ObamaCare] has less to do with insuring the uninsured than with one political party’s lunge for unprecedented power and control over people’s lives.” The utter contempt for individual rights, which is the hallmark of DC Democrats, has at last been revealed to any interested American. And the fact that healthcare may no longer be affordable or available interests one Hell of a lot of us.

Did Roberts assume the role of visionary by finding the ObamaCare mandate constitutional? After all, in spite of the happy faces assumed by party loons such as Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Senate Democrats like Mark Udall (Co) and Mary Landrieu (La) will likely enter Election Day 2014 from a position of weakness, dreading the possibility of THEIR vote being proclaimed the one that passed ObamaCare into law.

So was John Roberts a gutless traitor to the American nation and people? Was he blackmailed into finding the Act constitutional? Did he prostitute the Constitution in the hope of becoming an important part of history? Or did his purported act of prescience help to save the Republican Party from an historic collapse?


Photo Credit: McConnell Center (Creative Commons)

Why John Roberts (Likely) Is Protecting Obamacare…

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

On Monday, without comment (because he could not make a coherent one),  Chief Justice John Roberts denied a request by the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and the Alliance for Natural Health USA for a stay in the implementation of Obamacare. The groups had made their application last Friday, arguing that since the bill had been declared a tax by the Supreme Court (with Justice Roberts himself the deciding vote), and it had originated in the Senate (the Constitution says revenue bills may not originate), the law was therefore unconstitutional; and implementation of Obamacare  should at least be stayed pending further examination.

While there are other minor issues attached to the application that were also not addressed, the truth of the matter is clear: John Roberts will never do anything to derail Obamacare, no matter what arguments against it are brought before him.

There is very good reason to believe that regardless of the media’s skillful smothering of the story, John Roberts is being blackmailed to make certain Obamacare never falls in a Supreme Court case. The basis of this charge surrounds the fact that a series of strange (and probably felonious) acts are attached to the adoption of his two children.

In 2005, when they thought they were doing the Democrats’ bidding, the New York Times dug into apparently easily accessible records and found that the children Roberts and his wife adopted in “South America” started life as Irish citizens. This is a red flag. The laws of Ireland regarding adoptions are very clear: adoptions by non-citizens are prohibited, as are private adoptions.

Apparently, when the Democrats realized they could control a Supreme Court Justice’s vote through blackmail over his having committed a number of international crimes, the Times pulled back and dropped its investigation. The Democrat paper of record pulled back because it didn’t want to “ break the seal of an adoption case” – as if violating laws ever means anything to Democrats in their quest for power. Keep in mind Barack Obama’s violation of his opponents’ “sealed” divorce records propelled him to a US Senate seat.

What does the Roberts problem mean for the average American who looks to Washington for relief from Democrat oppression? It means we won’t be getting any relief from the Roberts Court, period.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath


Another Republican Governor Does Something About Illegals

Joe Guzzardi,

Last month, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley signed legislation (HB 56) that requires the use of E-Verify by all state employers. The law also gives Alabama some of the country’s strongest illegal-immigration enforcement tools.

Over the last decade, illegal immigration has increased in Alabama by 325 percent.

In a statement that underlines how over-immigration hurts American workers State Senator Scott Beason, a HB 56 cosponsor, said, “This is a jobs bill. We have a problem with an illegal workforce that displaces Alabama workers. We need to put those people back to work. That’s the No.1 priority.”

Another supporter, Republican state Rep. John Merrill said he didn’t hesitate to back the legislation because it is “good for Alabama” and will reduce illegal immigration into the state while “providing equal opportunities for all because who want to come to Alabama legally.” HB 56 requires all businesses, public and private, to begin using E-Verify effective April 1, 2012. Businesses that do not comply face suspension of their license and loss of employee expensing for state income tax purposes.

Other features of HB 56 will create misdemeanors for hiring day-laborers when Americans are available, failing to carry an alien registration card, producing fake ID and aiding and abetting illegal immigrants. It also will ban illegal aliens from attending state universities and colleges as well as prohibit sanctuary city policies.

In an effort to determine what the exact costs are of education for illegal alien children….

Read more.

Obama Stands By Rationer and Judicial Extremist Nominees Berwick and Liu

Ben Johnson,

Despite longstanding attempts to redefine Barack Obama as a down-the-middle centrist, Obama’s radical colors keep showing. Just today, the media announced he is standing by his nominations of the most conspicuous advocate of health care rationing, Dr. Donald Berwick, and a revolutionary in black robes named Goodwin Liu.

Most Congressional Democrats have given up on confirming Rationer-in-Chief Donald Berwick — but Barack Obama is keeping the faith. The White House put out the word that Berwick will not be thrown under the bus despite the mathematical impossibility of his being confirmed by the Senate.

“The president stands firmly behind the nomination of Don Berwick because he’s far and away the best person for the job, and he’s already doing stellar work,” according to Jay Carney, White House spokesman and trendy-word-user. Carney said Americans should support the “stellar” Berwick, because he is “implementing delivery system reforms that will save billions in excess costs and save millions of lives.” This tranquil-sounding phrase means Berwick is pressing forward with ObamaCare. A full 42 Republicans wrote a letter asking Berwick be withdrawn because of his….

Read more.