Assuming, arguendo, that Stop and Frisk was not random, it’s supposed downfall was it’s unequal targeting of suspect classes and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (I am getting this from memory, correct me if I’m wrong).
The complaint about checkpoints is not primarily that they target suspect classes, but that they violate the 4th amendment as unreasonable seizures and if compelled to speak, then they would violate the 5th.
The line of attack against checkpoints is not the same as that against Stop and Frisk. The similarity that is being drawn with the comparison is the relative success rate as a justification for the violate of rights. That slippery slope just leads to a pile of shit.
No, see, if you did that, simply stated your objection to the rulings I’d be right there with you. I think they suck. However, making incorrect factual statements does not do anyone any good. Say it sucks, say you hate it, say you advocate against changing it, all of those are available to you. If you say that the decisions were unconstitutional, then you’re in Bizaro world. At least have the correct starting point so that you can craft an argument.
And then you somehow try to make a connection between sobriety checkpoints to try to curb drunk driving and Japanese internment during WW2. You’re not getting anywhere with this line of argument. Your belief seems to be that it’s unacceptable to give up a few seconds of your time in a traffic stop that may happen on average every one or two years in order to help get drunks off the roads. The rationale is apparently that governments cannot be trusted. Let them get away with checkpoints, you seem to think, and who knows what’s next – they might eventually send all drivers to internment camps! Well call me radical, but my own view is that it’s drunk drivers that I don’t trust.
It’s true that constitutional interpretations change over time, but they change because societal norms and values change. You seem to be implying that in the long term such changes will lead to DUI checkpoints being outlawed. In this case, when it comes to societal attitudes to drunk driving, and balancing the risks of that behavior against minor constitutional intrusions, I don’t think history is on your side.
In any case, no offense but I thought it was pretty funny that after stating so unequivocally that checkpoints were patently unconstitutional, period, no question about it, you accused the other poster of being too unequivocal.
If your view is accepted, it becomes impossible to comment on the constitutionality of any measure – after all, things may change in the future.
Since all involved know that things could change with a future Supreme Court, it seems most useful and accurate to discuss the current state of the law, and reserve confident declarations of “Unconstitutional!” for practices which the Court has already struck down, or practices which have yet to be addressed. In my view, such a confident declaration is most weakly pathetic when it’s applied to a practice the Court has affirmatively endorsed.
Let’s use the Way Back Machine! It’s telling me that YOU were the first and only person in this thread to use the term “factual constitutionality”. Was your use an affront to common sense? In post #35, I asserted correctly that your post #33 was in error (factually incorrect) to which you have subsequently conceded. Your post was unequivocally in error.
THe difference being that when SCOTUS expresses an opinion it carries the force of law. Now this is a perfect example of equivocation! If your follow up is that evolution or gravity is just a theory then we’d have a trifecta.
