Signe Wilkinson for June 26, 2014

  1. Missing large
    hippogriff  over 8 years ago

    Mr King: Forshortening. Plus you couldn’t read it otherwise – like the police chiefs who give the orders to disregard the law.

     •  Reply
  2. Cylonb
    Mephistopheles  over 8 years ago

    Brilliant!!!!!!

    The Supreme Court got this one right!!!!

     •  Reply
  3. Missing large
    oneoldhat  over 8 years ago

    and the buffer zone ruling // 2 in a row WOW

     •  Reply
  4. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  over 8 years ago

    “MIranda” was declared long ago by opponents that it would let all criminals walk. It didn’t happen, but it did force police and the courts to follow the Constitution more closely. With our electronic world of today, both sides of the discussion on “privacy” (which isn’t actually mentioned as such in the Constitution) are finding many new complications.

    Is a murderer for a drug cartel for instance any less a threat than “terrorists” who are monitored under the “Patriot” and other Acts?

    The other element is it forces cops to become smarter crooks than the crooks if the “bad guys” are going to get nailed!

     •  Reply
  5. Missing large
    oneoldhat  over 8 years ago

    arodney you can not give things to jury members either

     •  Reply
  6. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  over 8 years ago

    As that awful CNN pointed out, a lot more clinics have been burned, bombed, and had homicides than outside the hallowed halls of SCOTUS. How about restraining orders?

     •  Reply
  7. Missing large
    hippogriff  over 8 years ago

    motivemagnus: It happens when a majority belong to a religion that considers women second class.

     •  Reply
  8. Missing large
    Blairtim42 Premium Member over 8 years ago

    They protected our privacy on our phones, but eliminated our fourth amendment rights regarding our person, cars, and homes.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Signe Wilkinson