Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Supreme Court Rules Police Need Warrant To Search Your Cell Phone History" video.

  1. "Reasonable suspicion" is vague. When the pull you over they sometimes ask if you are carrying guns and rocket launchers. If you mouth off and say yes then that is all they need. They will search your car. That's it.
    4
  2. Flash, strict constructionists will argue that it has to be written verbatim. Your example on "freedom from religion" is listed when it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That is your "freedom from religion" in that Congress cannot establish a religion.
    3
  3. Flash, there are essentially two types of justices. You have strict constructionists and then you have judicial activists. There is a desire to have both kinds on the bench for numerous reasons. A judicial activist will agree that something does not have to be written in the Constitution verbatim for it to be a right. A strict constructionist would disagree. Both sides have valid points. I encourage people to study up on the issue. My point is this, nowhere in the Constitution is the word "privacy" written. So when people say that you have a "right to privacy" they are being careless as one can easily argue you don't. I am playing devil's advocate like I always do on this comment section. Apparently it is wrong to do that and wrong to encourage people to study up and become educated on these issues.
    3
  4. Read up on their reasoning. In Gorsuch case he agreed with the majority in principle, but disagreed with the reasoning. You have no right to privacy. You have a right to be protected from search and seizure. The way the case was being presented Gorsuch disagreed with so that is why he made the decision he did. He does not want to continue to set the grounds on a right of privacy which is nowhere in the Constitution. The others have a valid point. There are resources available to help solve crimes. This case was particular in that it dealt with location. A cell phone is arguably one method to determine someone's location. Others are cameras and witnesses. When you are interacting in public there are certain methods allowed to keep order while also allowing people to move freely. We have cameras all around for security reasons but people's lives are no violated. So they have a valid reason. Of course you won't care because you are a SJW.
    2
  5. Ben Denis, I am a moderate on an ultra leftist channel. I am actually trying to push people to become educated and aware of these issues. I am not saying I am right as these topics are debatable. I am also not saying I am an expert because I am not. What I am giving are counter viewpoints on these topics to get people to think. I know my opinions are not popular and I don't care. I want people to think. Apparently to some thinking and being challenged offends them which is a problem.
    2
  6. The dissent opinions have valid reasons. Gorsuch disagreed with the idea of privacy as that is not in the Constitution. He agreed to being against search and seizure, but did not want to continue down the path of privacy. Contrary to popular believe you have no right to privacy. The others have legit reasons as well. As technology grows there are more methods in solving crime. Cell phone locations is one of them . One can argue that a cell phone location is no different than a security camera. When you interact in public there are laws in place that on the surface may seem to violated the Constitution, but in reality creates a balance of keeping order and allowing others to be free. A prime example is DUI checkpoints. One can argue that they violated the 4th amendment but if you read the ruling it basically sums up to that law enforcement has reasons to create checkpoints to stop drunk drivers and those checkpoints do not delay traffic nor violate people's property as there are limitations in what they can search. So the argument with cell phone locations is that it is you interacting in public and much like a security camera is a way to track your location. Don't like it, shut off your cell phone. Do I agree? Not completely, but I see the reasoning.
    2
  7. E W, nowhere in the Constitution is the word "privacy" listed. I encourage you to actually read the Constitution.
    2
  8. E W, I just read the 4th amendment. I am not seeing the word "privacy".
    2
  9. E W, I thought we had a right to privacy at one point as well. However, I was talking to a lawyer and he informed me we don't. He informed me that privacy is listed nowhere in the Constitution. This was key in the Roe v Wade decision in that your right to privacy was protected when others have argued you don't have that right. Those that did were judicial activist and at the time ruled in that favor for many reasons we do not need to get into. Listen, I am not saying I agree or disagree with this decision. I am laying out a fact. Nowhere in the Constitution is the word "privacy" listed. Strict constructionist will support that idea and they have a very valid argument. I strongly encourage you to study up on this topic. Go beyond google.
    2
  10. E W, it does not translate to privacy. The second you step out in public your privacy is gone. That is why cops can use security cameras to monitor your movement. Search and seizure means what it says, search and seizure. Your property cannot be search or seized. However, you do not have a right to privacy.
    2
  11. Contrary to popular belief you don't have a right to privacy. The dissenting opinions have valid reasons for why they voted the way they did. Those who are so quick to question why it was a 5-4 vote should actually read the opinions and the reasoning behind them. They are valid.
    1
  12. IstharNike, I hardly throw in insults. When have I ever called anyone a Nazi? Also, I see many SJWs on here. SJWs, to me, exists on both sides. They are individuals who have no desire to listen to the other side nor accept their position as legit. Look at the comment by Gay Spooderman. The dissenting opinions had legit reasons to vote they way they did. Also, just because someone is a SJW does not make them a bad person. They simply refuse to be informed. It is sad but at the same time that is normal in life. Many people simply do not have time to be informed. I just wish that those who don't admit it. But again, when have I ever called anyone a Nazi? And what insults have I given?
    1
  13. You don't have a right to privacy. Read the Constitution.
    1
  14. AlphaMikeOmega, nowhere in the 4th amendment does the word "privacy" come up. What that 4th amendment protects you from is search and seizure. However, your privacy is not protected. This is important because when you enter the public and leave your home you can be monitored in numerous was like security cameras. It is also why DUI checkpoints are legal. You are interacting in public and thus the cops have a reason to create DUI checkpoints in certain times and certain locations and stop you in order to keep order. Technically your privacy is violated, but again, you do not have a right to privacy. Wording is important. I encourage you to read up on Constitutional law. Again, nowhere in the Constitution is the word "privacy" listed.
    1
  15. The Chairman, what was wrong with what I said? Many legal scholars argue this point often. I am encouraging people to look into it. It is wrong to push people to do research?
    1
  16. E W, I am reading the 4th amendment and I am not seeing the word "privacy" anywhere. This is something that legal scholars have argued often and is the reason why Gorsuch gave his dissenting opinion. Gorsuch is a SC justice with a JD from Harvard and a DPhil from Oxford. But sure, yeah, he has no clue what is he talking about. I am supposed to trust some guy doing a random google search.
    1
  17. The Mother Flickers, you say what you do but reality is that this ultra leftist channel is dying. Also, if you read my comments I am encouraging this individual to do research on this topic. I said, correctly, that "privacy" is not listed anywhere in the Constitution. You will not find that word at all. One can easily argue, and many have, that you do not have a right to privacy. You have a right to be protected from search and seizure, which to a degree is privacy, but not completely. Legal scholars argued this a lot and still do as you can see with Gorsuch's dissenting opinion. It isn't about me claiming I am better than you or not. It is about you digging deeper into these issues. Is it so wrong to want to be educated on these topics? If so I can see why this channel is dying.
    1
  18. E W, my opinion is not wrong. Again, this is why Gorsuch made his dissenting opinion. Again, legal scholars have argue this for a long time. Again, I strongly encourage you to look deeper in this.
    1
  19. E W, with you colorful language you clearly have no desire to actually expand your mind on issues like these.
    1
  20. Duron Wise, they did so on specific cases.
    1
  21. ZachyZachyZachy, the idea of rights not listed in the bill of rights is passed onto the states. There are limitations to the rights when we interact in public. The government cannot search your home but they can search private records on yourself. As for cellphones and locations, compare it also to a car. A cop can search your car without a warrant in many states. In my state they can search any open place within arm's reach of the driver. So the front seat and the back seat. They cannot search a third row seat or any closed areas like the glove compartment. They also cannot open up any containers that the item they are looking for cannot fit in. For example, if they are looking for possibly a gun they cannot open a thermos. If they do and find weed the driver cannot get in trouble for that as the cop had no reason to open that. Study law. It is interesting how people use words to their advantage. I remember learning in middle school how there were limitations on owning land per person and it was written that someone had to be "over 18" to own land. Thus people put the number "18" on the bottom of their kid's shoe saying they were "over 18". But the way the law was written they were correct. Read laws and how they are written. Read these opinions, there are valid points. Just don't do a knee jerk reaction, it makes you look foolish.
    1
  22. To extend, the government knows a lot about you. They know your work history, your residency history, how well you did in school, how well your kids do in school. They know many things about you. If you want to extend that right to privacy argument than the government should know nothing about you. We should remove all social security numbers, and the government should not have records on where you live, or what jobs you work. However, they do. The government knows what jobs I work which one can argue is a violation of my privacy. But again, we do not have a right to privacy.
    1
  23. Daniel Pierik, it isn't "common knowledge" if there is an argument to begin with.
    1
  24. Daniel, if someone overhears my conversation that can be used against me. Immediately I don't have privacy.
    1
  25. Read his opinion, it is valid. You do not have a right to privacy. You have a right from search and seizure. He agreed with the overall ruling, but disagreed with the reasoning. It would behoove you to actually read what they write and not just how they voted.
    1
  26. FrontierBrainRobby, it depends on the state. In my state a cop can search your car in any open area within arm's reach of the people there. For example, you have one driver the cop can search the front seats and the back seats. They cannot search a third row. They cannot open a glove compartment unless they are looking for a specific item. That item they are looking for has to reasonably fit in the place they open up. For example, if they suspect a gun they cannot open a thermos. If they do and find weed that weed cannot be used against the driver. So there are limits in what a cop can search in a car, but they can search a car depending on the state. I tis similar to DUI checkpoints. Many complain that it violates the 4th amendment, but read Michigan Department of State Police v Sitz.
    1
  27. John Hawthorne, the argument is that they are not searching your phone but only where it was located based on the towers you were using. Just like getting security camera footage. Also, nowhere is the word "privacy" written in the Constitution. So no, you do not have a right to privacy. That is why government has records on you such as what jobs you have worked and where you life. If you want to go farther privacy would be preventing the government from knowing where you live or where you work, or how your kids do in school. Based on that idea of privacy the government should know nothing about you but they do.
    1
  28. You don't have a right to privacy. Show me where the word "privacy" is in the Constitution.
    1
  29. CNN, yes. The Constitution is the framework and standard our government works in.
    1
  30. Read his opinion. He agreed with the majority but for different reasons. Nowhere in the Constitution does the word "privacy" exist. He was against this ruling as it is another privacy ruling. You do not have a right to privacy.
    1