Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Supreme Court rules for police in search case [View all]treestar
(82,383 posts)18. thanks!
Looks like Thomas wrote one on his own.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
46 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Justices aren't required to explain fully, but: Have you read the decision for the rationale?
JonLeibowitz
Jun 2016
#5
I suspect what swayed them was that there was already a warrant for the guy.
cstanleytech
Jun 2016
#35
We are moving closer to an "Ends justify the means" legal process. That's gonna be fun. n/t
CincyDem
Jun 2016
#10
It'd be nice to know the name of the case, so we could see which it actually says
treestar
Jun 2016
#12
am I incorrect for assuming ANYONE can now be stopped because the law is now "What IF"...
NoMoreRepugs
Jun 2016
#17
Yeah, the War on Certain Drugs, and the invention of flushable toilets, killed it off.
arcane1
Jun 2016
#30
Thats merely her opinion though the court if presented with such a case down the road could
cstanleytech
Jun 2016
#34