Monday, April 2, 2012

Obama is the One Taking Our "Freedoms?"

I think this guy was a mistake. Image from LA Times
Since early 2009--practically the day of President Obama's inauguration, possibly earlier--conservatives have been saying that Obama is taking our "freedoms" away. Rarely do they enumerate these freedoms that have allegedly been removed, and when they do there are usually flaws in their arguments.

But what is the right doing when our freedoms really are being taken away? Republican Governors all over the country have been stomping on a woman's right to choose whether or not to remain pregnant. And even if you disagree that there is such a right (though it was acknowledged by the Supreme Court), what about the forced vaginal probes? That would seem to be a freedom stomping right there. Or, how about whole towns in Michigan that have their vote taken away, and their elected officials replaced with "emergency managers?" Indefinitely?

Those are just a couple of areas. There are many other examples, including the orchestrated attempt by the GOP (and their owners, ALEC and others) to systematically reduce the number of registered Democratic voters through a series of laws. They use excellent smokescreen justifications for Voter ID laws and other measures, but the aim is very clearly voter suppression. And what is more fundamental than the right to vote?

How about the constitutionally guaranteed right to not be unreasonably searched or seized? Because the Supreme Court of the United States has just made it a-okay for citizens to be strip searched if they have been detained by police, for any reason. You don't have to be guilty, you don't have to be charged, just detained. The guy at the center of this case was detained for six days on a bogus charge, and strip searched twice. He broke no law, and was suspected of no contraband, but they did it to him anyway. And the conservative five on SCOTUS says they're cool with that.


Supreme Court upholds strip-searches for jail inmates

The Supreme Court refused to halt routine strip-searches of new jail inmates, including those arrested for minor offenses, saying the need to screen out weapons and drugs outweighed the right to privacy.
The 5-4 majority ruled it would be "unworkable" to require guards — who at large county jails must screen hundreds of new inmates — to spare those who may not appear dangerous. . .

Read more at: Los Angeles Times


  1. So, who is dangerous? Do you go by their word?
    I am pretty sure jails would rather not do strip searches if they could avoid it. But in this day and age, you do not know who brings in drugs or weapons stuck up in their butts or other hiding places.
    Now, if there was a fool proof way to come up with a way to prevent the searches, fine, go for it. Maybe every jail can get those TSA xrays that show the naked body.

  2. Well, let's just go with the guy in the case. He wasn't doing anything wrong. He was a passenger in the car of his wife who was getting a ticket. He had proof that he didn't have an outstanding fine. They jailed him anyway in two different places, for SIX days, and strip searched him twice. ANYBODY could have been this guy, and subjected to this. How in the world was this guy a potential jailhouse smuggler?

    I really hope this guy was able to get the cops on SOMETHING besides the strip search part. . .unlawful detention, something. In any event, I'm amazed that any conservative would be for this.


Have something to say to us? Post it here!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...