Indiana Supreme Court: No Right to Resist Unlawful Police Entry

[PanzerJaeger]

It's not just Louis who sees it, Panzer. "Prepare for the storm!" as a slogan would fit better on one of your militaria signatures than on political campaigning material for a peaceful mature democracy. I agree with Louis - that poster is so like the pre-Grifford cross-hairs material, it's uncanny. The dogwhistling is defeaning.

Obviously you weren't around for the Bush years.



I just don't read any violent anti-government rhetoric in the poster. It is very clearly political in nature. The 'storm' is obviously alluding to the Democratic domination of the presidency and the legislative branches coming into 2009. That kind of "your rights are in jeopardy, send us money to protect them!" language is common among groups on both sides. Are pressure groups allowed any creative license in their fundraising initiatives?

We agree that gun advocacy movement radicalised in the early nineties. We disagree about later developments. The militia movement is well past its heyday of the nineties. But not, I think, because their thought has evaporated. On the contrary, I think their radical, extreme thought has managed to become mainstream. Indeed, that much of their concepts have driven a radicalisation of the right in general. The Teaparty in many ways is the spiritual heir.
The NRA has been one of the driving forces behind the radicalisation of the hardright, and of the shift to the hardright of rightwing political thought. The relationship is not the other way round. It is the NRA/gun lobby which feeds the hardright, not the hardright which feeds the gun movement.

It all culminated in the SC's rulings of 2008 and 2010, which constitute a breach with two centuries of thought, and which presented a complete victory for the pro-gun lobby. It is not the gun lobby which has been tamed, it is the gun lobby which has tamed the government. Personally, I find it a shocking development that 'the NRA is now partnered with many state and federal agencies to teach proper gun safety and operation classes'. De-escalation alright, but a de-escalation by way of the NRA taming the opposition, by disarming gun control.

I would argue that the TEA Party movement is a spiritual heir of the Reagan Revolution, and by extension, the ideas proposed by Barry Goldwater and the original conservative movement against the Great Society.

Now it can be argued that the short lived militia movement of the 90's was a radicalized offshoot of that movement, but it would be hard to argue that the militia movement transcended into mainstream American politics in any way, shape, or form. As mentioned, the OKC bombing relegated it to the fringes for the foreseeable future.

Anyway, what can I say - that's democracy. Two sides emerged, one pro-gun rights and one anti. The popular support, money, law, and votes were all on the side of the pro movement which eventually won the ideological battle, at least for the time being. And now the focus has shifted to where it should have been all along - on preventing illegal gun use and ownership instead of dismantling a long established constitutional right, and gun crime statistics reflect the wisdom of that approach.

[Samurai Waki]

Right now is simply a bad time to pretend we can resolve our problems with guns, an armed uprising in the states is likely to go very, very badly for those who aren't on the side of the law, whether it's an unconstitutional law or not... Media will likely make the group out to be extremists, and homeland security is pretty good on picking up on organisations that plot these kinds of actions before it ever happens. What has been happening in the Middle East would be probably be a better route to go than one of violent revolution.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So Louis, for all your fancy-pants talkin' and whatnot, you've got no example of where the NRA called cops - as in police officers and not the ATF - 'jackbooted thugs'?

It all culminated in the SC's rulings of 2008 and 2010, which constitute a breach with two centuries of thought

I don't think that could be correct in any context.

Also, I find it amusing you describe the NRA as hard-right. In the pro-gun movement many folks consider them to willing to compromise, as opposed to, say, the Gun Owners of America.

This will eventually end up before the US Supreme Court and be overturned.

I'm afraid I find that doubtful.

CR

[jabarto]

doubtful

That's putting it mildly.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Arm yourselves

[Strike For The South]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

the ideas proposed by Barry Goldwater and the original conservative movement against the Great Society.

The modern conservative movement has its roots first and foremost with the old-stock blue blood anti new dealers who provided the intellectual captial, which could only be capitialized upon when the south defected because black people were tired of being lynched and beaten

[PanzerJaeger]

The modern conservative movement has its roots first and foremost with the old-stock blue blood anti new dealers who provided the intellectual captial, which could only be capitialized upon when the south defected because black people were tired of being lynched and beaten

This new found obsession with race and the South isn't healthy. Mr. Kruse's book was myopic at best, and certainly shouldn't be used as a singular foundation for one's understanding of modern conservatism.

[Strike For The South]

This new found obsession with race and the South isn't healthy. Mr. Kruse's book was myopic at best, and certainly shouldn't be used as a singular foundation for one's understanding of modern conservatism.

Oh geeze I post one book in the monastery and it gets thrown back at me

It is not a singular foundation but it rings really true. The south didn't defect becuase the dems went lib, I mean some of the biggest new deal supporters were poor southern whites. The first champions of big goverment if you will. It is only when the arm of government is used against their aparthiaed lite social structure does it begin to change. You also conviently leave out the first part of post where I talk about the anti-new dealers whom provided the intellectual capitial. The south was merley a vessel for manpower, no true ideas came from them they were all imported from other parts of America.

People like Phyllis Schalfy, Goldwater, and even Rockefeller fermented the IDEAS but you certainly don't have a Reagan revo without a south firmly in your corner and race is a big part of that, thier is no denying that

obessison? Do I dare mention a certain war? LOL. We all have our PASSIONS, obessions make me sound stalkerish....of course so do the police reports from old girlfriends

BA DUM TISH

[a completely inoffensive name]

This new found obsession with race and the South isn't healthy. Mr. Kruse's book was myopic at best, and certainly shouldn't be used as a singular foundation for one's understanding of modern conservatism.

Modern conservatism is a bunch of elites gaining support of the religious, the bigoted and a good portion of independents by abusing the language of classical liberalism to gain political power in order to secure their own financial interests at the expense of the public. They implement religious based social policies in order to placate such public so that they do not appear to look like charlatans.

The days of Goldwater, Nixon and Buckley are dead and the intellectual basis behind modern conservatism is non existent. Modern conservatism needs to be eradicated and replaced with libertarianism, which is much closer to the classical liberalism that the average joe wants when he votes GOP.

Modern liberalism is exactly the same but opposite. More financial abuse at the expense of the public but with more progressive social policies enforced to placate the base.

It's never the Fed, net neutrality, internet copyright laws or the regulation of financial derivatives that get shoved upon the people to argue about. It is always God, guns, gays, abortion.

[PanzerJaeger]

Oh geeze I post one book in the monastery and it gets thrown back at me

At least I'm paying attention.

It is not a singular foundation but it rings really true. The south didn't defect becuase the dems went lib, I mean some of the biggest new deal supporters were poor southern whites.

"Lib" entails more than just economic positions. The problem with Kruse's book is that it too focuses on one issue.

obessison? Do I dare mention a certain war? LOL.

Hehe, thank you for pointing out that enormous glass structure that I seem to be occupying.

Modern conservatism is a bunch of elites gaining support of the religious, the bigoted and a good portion of independents by abusing the language of classical liberalism to gain political power in order to secure their own financial interests at the expense of the public. They implement religious based social policies in order to placate such public so that they do not appear to look like charlatans.

The days of Goldwater, Nixon and Buckley are dead and the intellectual basis behind modern conservatism is non existent. Modern conservatism needs to be eradicated and replaced with libertarianism, which is much closer to the classical liberalism that the average joe wants when he votes GOP.

Modern liberalism is exactly the same but opposite. More financial abuse at the expense of the public but with more progressive social policies enforced to placate the base.

It's never the Fed, net neutrality, internet copyright laws or the regulation of financial derivatives that get shoved upon the people to argue about. It is always God, guns, gays, abortion.

I agree to a certain extent that both sides are caricatures of their former, more ideologically pure, movements. Most of what is argued about has long since been decided, but still tugs at people's emotions and thus their wallets.

[Strike For The South]

The issue of race?

Race is merley the underpinnig for the ideoligical shift.

Mambo#5 just came on pandora

This post ends here

[a completely inoffensive name]

I agree to a certain extent that both sides are caricatures of their former, more ideologically pure, movements. Most of what is argued about has long since been decided, but still tugs at people's emotions and thus their wallets.

I am currently taking my sweet time going through F. A. Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" because I am lazy and love video games, but I have already been hit hard with a passage I will not forget for a long time from the 1956 foreword:

"It is true, of course, that in the struggle against the believers in the all-powerful state the true liberal must sometimes make common cause with the conservative, and in some circumstances, as in contemporary Britain, he has hardly any other way of actively working for his ideals. But the true liberalism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is danger in the two being confused. Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege. The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others."

[Beirut]

Get stronger front doors.

[drone]

This ruling doesn't matter anymore, because SCOTUS has just made every warrantless police entry "legal". The 4th no longer applies.
Supreme Court OKs warrantless searches

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence might be destroyed.

The justices said officers who smell marijuana and loudly knock on the door may break in if they hear sounds that suggest the residents are scurrying to hide the drugs.

Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, Justice Samuel Alito said for an 8-1 majority.

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case had handed the police an important new tool.

"The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases," Ginsburg wrote. "In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant."

If a cop wants to bust down a door, they now have the excuse. Yeah, this won't get abused, not one bit.

[jabarto]

So is the Supreme Court just dispensing with any notions of secrecy and instead trying to publicly become as cartoonishly evil as possible?

Because that's what it looks like to me.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The benefits of a GOP SCOTUS.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The benefits of a GOP SCOTUS.

Indeed. Well done.

Serves people right for voting Conservative - as is customary, soon the government will break down your door to ensure proper morals are followed in your household.

Modern conservatism is a bunch of elites gaining support of the religious, the bigoted and a good portion of independents by abusing the language of classical liberalism to gain political power in order to secure their own financial interests at the expense of the public. They implement religious based social policies in order to placate such public so that they do not appear to look like charlatans.

The days of Goldwater, Nixon and Buckley are dead and the intellectual basis behind modern conservatism is non existent. Modern conservatism needs to be eradicated and replaced with libertarianism, which is much closer to the classical liberalism that the average joe wants when he votes GOP.

But is this true?

If it is libertarianism that Average Joe really wants, then why do the charlatans use social conservatism to lure Average Joe, instead of luring him with...his beloved libertarianism? Especially when this libertarianism is much closer to those financial interests of the charlatans than social conservatism. A libertarianism which apparantly is what both Average Joe and Average Charlatan really want.


What if Joe and Jane Sixpack simply really are interested in God, guns and some healthy patriotism? At least more than in regulation of financial derivatives and internet copyrights. Concepts which they know they have no firm grasp of, and which they therefore deem best entrusted in the hands of people with the same basic moral outlook as themselves. That is, God-fearing patriots.

[Louis VI the Fat]

So Louis, for all your fancy-pants talkin' and whatnot, you've got no example of where the NRA called cops - as in police officers and not the ATF - 'jackbooted thugs'?

CR

Possibly. My Google-fu failed me, I did not find the original letter. I guess it depends on what one makes of the passage refering to 'if you have a badge...' It does not seem to refer solely to the ATF to me: The letter, sent to the NRA's 3.5 million members in March over LaPierre's signature, referred to federal law-enforcement agents as "jack-booted government thugs" and said that "in Clinton's administration, if you have a badge, you have the government's go-ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The benefits of a GOP SCOTUS.

It's not just the GOP if the vote was 8-1. The issue decided was not quite as dire as made out above, though it still offends me.

Oh, and back to Indiana, welcome to the police state:
http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Le...s-we-will.html

CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

Speaking under the condition of anonymity, a local city Police Chief with 30 years experience in law enforcement directly contradicted the Newton County Sheriff’s blatant disregard for privacy & liberty, stating that as an American first, such an action is unconscionable and that his allegiance is to the Indiana and federal Constitutions respectively. However, he also concurred that the ruling does now allow for police to randomly search homes should a department be under order by state or federal officials or under a department’s own accord.

At this time we are still awaiting comments from several state offices.

Possibly. My Google-fu failed me, I did not find the original letter. I guess it depends on what one makes of the passage refering to 'if you have a badge...' It does not seem to refer solely to the ATF to me: The letter, sent to the NRA's 3.5 million members in March over LaPierre's signature, referred to federal law-enforcement agents as "jack-booted government thugs" and said that "in Clinton's administration, if you have a badge, you have the government's go-ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens.

There's a significant difference between federal agents and cops.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

But is this true?

If it is libertarianism that Average Joe really wants, then why do the charlatans use social conservatism to lure Average Joe, instead of luring him with...his beloved libertarianism? Especially when this libertarianism is much closer to those financial interests of the charlatans than social conservatism. A libertarianism which apparantly is what both Average Joe and Average Charlatan really want.


What if Joe and Jane Sixpack simply really are interested in God, guns and some healthy patriotism? At least more than in regulation of financial derivatives and internet copyrights. Concepts which they know they have no firm grasp of, and which they therefore deem best entrusted in the hands of people with the same basic moral outlook as themselves. That is, God-fearing patriots.

Libertarianism isn't what they want, it is just closer to what they want then modern conservatism. They want classical liberalism.

The charlatans do use libertarianism which tries to model classical liberalism to lure the average joe. Liberty, freedom, choice, all are buzzwords taken from classical liberalism that are held in high esteem by libertarianism abused by modern conservatism.

Libertarianism isn't what the financial interests want. Right now they have it worked it out as socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Libertarians are hardcore with their beliefs that government is the source of any corporate power over the citizen, so keep the two completely separate. Including letting all the banks fail in 2008 crash. This would mean capitalism for both the rich and the poor. The US is not how it was during the Gilded Age. There are no more tariffs on foreign goods and companies compete with the entire world now. They depend on subsidies and bailouts to survive. Thus libertarianism threatens them.

The average moderate voter are interested in all those things, but are interested in economic matters as well. Both sides push the social topics on everyone to keep them from talking about the economic matters. Average voters back in the late 1800s did not have much knowledge about the economic implications or theories about the choice between free silver vs gold backing of the dollar, and yet it influence if not determined many elections.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's not just the GOP if the vote was 8-1. The issue decided was not quite as dire as made out above, though it still offends me.
CR

5 of the supreme court justices were placed by Reagan, Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. All three had contempt for impartiality and placed very conservative justices on the court to counter the "activist judges" with their own.

2 of the justices were placed by Clinton, and again those two that were put there were heavily rallied against by the GOP who pushed against any sort of "activist judge" which meant any sort of judge not conservative. Ginsburg as far as I can tell, has been a repeat of Warren, who was placed there to be a conservative by Eisenhower, only to make more liberal decisions, much to Eisenhower's frustration.

The last two that Obama has placed has been the same thing. Conservatives crying about activist judges to the point where they forced Obama to choose moderate candidates that have streaks of both in them, depending on the topic.

The SCOTUS really has been manipulated by the GOP for many years now, and to deny that is shaky ground imo.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The SCOTUS really has been manipulated by the GOP for many years now, and to deny that is shaky ground imo.

It's been manipulated as much as possible by both parties, because they're both full of filthy politicians. The vast majority of politicians are both ignorant and contemptuous of the whole constitution, because it limits what they can do.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's been manipulated as much as possible by both parties, because they're both full of filthy politicians.

Historically, yes. However, one party has been dominating the process for the past 40 years. It is solely because of them that we have to endure this current court.

The vast majority of politicians are both ignorant and contemptuous of the whole constitution, because it limits what they can do.
CR

This is true, but it doesn't negate the reality of the situation. This is the GOP's court. They put them there, they want them there, they like their decisions.

As I have said in this thread already, the GOP are anything but what libertarian minded people want them to be. Ron Paul has said it himself that Progressives and Libertarians have much more common ground due to their shared ideals of less government involvement in personal lives than do mainstream Republicans and Libertarians.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Historically, yes. However, one party has been dominating the process for the past 40 years. It is solely because of them that we have to endure this current court.

The court is pretty split, with Kennedy as the usual decider between the 'conservative' and the 'liberal' wings. Ex; Kelo vs New London. Also, the Heller decision - which was a 5-4 vote.

It's not so important which presidents appointed them as how they act once they get there.

As I have said in this thread already, the GOP are anything but what libertarian minded people want them to be. Ron Paul has said it himself that Progressives and Libertarians have much more common ground due to their shared ideals of less government involvement in personal lives than do mainstream Republicans and Libertarians.

As of late, many progressives have become increasingly hostile towards libertarians. Probably because once the progressives got their man in power, they realized they liked having a powerful government.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's not so important which presidents appointed them as how they act once they get there.

Depends. If you choose someone leaning to one side or the other, then its comes down to how they act when they get there. If you put blatantly ideological people on the court, they are not likely to suddenly change their entire ideology.

As of late, many progressives have become increasingly hostile towards libertarians. Probably because once the progressives got their man in power, they realized they liked having a powerful government.
CR

Progressives are hostile to libertarians because libertarians keep voting for conservatives. Again, why is there not one libertarian that is a front runner? And yet why does every mainstream libertarian run GOP? Progressives go out of their way to vote for progressives if the neoliberals don't satisfy them Ex. Nader. Yet libertarians never seem to have the heart to flock en mass to those that will actually uphold their ideas.