"Regardless of what you think of Rick, I don't see how anyone who says they're sworn to 'support and defend the Constitution' can possibly read this ruling and not find its logic and conclusions completely contrary to both the word and spirit of the 4th Amendment as well as the previous caselaw mentioned by MD.
IMHO the dissent hit it on the nose."
IMHO the dissent hit it on the nose."
"Concur. Am not a fan of 'Rick's Rants' but he's NOT wrong and I was hoping he'd triumph in court."
I was amazed at the response over at the Poisoned Blue Well, concerning my appeal for an unlawful checkpoint encounter covered by Jacob Sullum from Reason Magazine. I figured it would be the standard, but it wasn't. Until then it was. The thread about the Air Force Times' subsequent article began in the "Squadron Bar" forum (which should be re-named the "Squadron Heritage Room"), as an incredibly sane discussion. People said they didn't like me, but that the issue I raised was right. That's a high mark of confidence in the issue, when you can admit somebody you don't like is correct. Then there was a civil delivery of red herrings by one poster, but then it recovered with more sanity. People started to speak up, good on them. Just sharing an opinion is important. They made the excellent and accurate point that they didn't have to like me, to verbally make good on their oaths and pronounce the truth. That is the heart of professionalism, not allowing your own prejudices to cloud your ability to understand and pronounce the truth of a matter even when you know what you say is not popular.
As an aside, there is another voice out there, in another medium, who has also professed correct viewpoints in a similar manner. But true to form, has lied to his readers in the process. I will not be applauding him in this post.
For those who moderate the Poisoned Blue Well, sadly, the posters were all well known long time members, so they were unable to demonize some pro-Constitution, pro-oath of office viewpoints as me in the form of a troll who had invaded their website (a silly claim they have used before). That tactic not available to them, they simply deleted the thread. There was nothing but polite discussion. There weren't any insults or heated exchanges. There was no profanity. But there was good discussion about defending our Constitution and there were references to the oath we take. That is verboten. So the thread had to be deleted.
The Constitution is verboten at that digital hang out controlled by retired and currently serving military officers. If you have forgotten what "verboten" means, it's German, and one of several moderators at the Poisoned Blue Well would be glad to help you understand.
No comments:
Post a Comment