Supreme Court upholds DNA swabbing of people under arrest

My problem is that you can be arrested at anytime for anything. The police could walk into town and arrest everyone they see take them back to the station swab them all then let them go. This effectively gives the police the right to force anyone at anytime involved or not in any crime to give DNA.


It also opens the door to mass swabbing. *knocks on door number 1* "Sir would you kindly give us your DNA so we can rule you out because you simply live in this neighborhood?" The man being questioned "Uh no" The police "You are under arrest, *takes DNA in the doorway of said household*, OK sir you are free to go. *walks away with DNA*.

Next house rinse and repeat. Mass swabbing here we come.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Not sure I understand your meaning.

reply to post by newcovenant

Originally posted by newcovenant

Then why did all the Liberal Justices vote against these intrusive laws?

Scalia, a liberal? But, yes the other three got it right, too.

And those same justices and most of the Democratic Party voted against the Patriot Act.

First, the "justices" didn't "vote" for anything.

Second, I'll repeat... The Patriot Act of 2001, a clear assault on privacy and liberties of the People, was passed on the yea votes of 98 of the 100 senators and 357 of the 432 representatives. The act's reauthorization, in 2006, passed on the yea votes of 89 senators.

How can you say that "most of the Democratic Party voted against the Patriot Act? Only 1 democrat senator voted against the original Patriot Act... Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. Only 9 voted against the 2006 reauthorization.

It is because we have 2 defense lobbyist per congressman.

Note that you did not say "2 per republican congressman"...

The GOP passed CITIZENS UNITED and gave INDUSTRY & CORPORATIONS the same rights as individuals, gave them "personhood"

First of all, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 (2010), was a Supreme Court Case, not legislation voted on by congress. It wasn't something that could be passed by the GOP or voted against by democrats.

Second, the Citizens United decision didn't grant "corporate personhood", it merely reaffirmed the previous SCOTUS decision in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward 17 U.S. 518 (1819). Did you see that date? The idea that corporations possess the same rights as "natural persons" and are protected by the same Constitutional guarantees, was first affirmed by the SCOTUS way back in 1819.

You don't need a roof to fall on your head do you?

Duck!

*** Well, I didn't notice this poster had been banned, before I replied. Oh, well. Hope he/she comes back to read this anyway. It would be a shame for him/her to go through the rest of his/her life believing the propaganda. ***