Tag Archives: Justice Scalia

Cruz: ‘The Second Amendment Will Be Written Out of the Constitution’ if Trump is President

As previously reported by Truth In Media, Senior Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes at a ranch in West Texas Saturday morning.

The passing of Scalia sparked different reactions from presidential candidates and political organizations. Both the National Rifle Association and Republican presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) are emphasizing the importance of replacing Scalia’s seat with a pro-2nd Amendment Justice.

According to Washington Examiner, the NRA will spend $20 million during the election to push for gun rights and will lobby for pro 2nd Amendment justices.

The NRA tweeted Senator Ted Cruz’s statement at the news of Scalia’s passing.

Senator Cruz told This Week‘s George Stephanopoulos the importance of the next election and how it will affect the SCOTUS’ decision on important issues like the 2nd Amendment. Cruz also told Stephanopoulos that he intends to filibuster any Supreme Court nominee brought forward by President Obama.

“I don’t think the American people want a court that will write the 2nd Amendment out of the Constitution,” said Cruz.

But Cruz went a step further by attacking his opponent Donald Trump.

Cruz said, “And if Donald Trump becomes president, the Second Amendment will be written out of the Constitution because it is abundantly clear that Donald Trump is not a conservative. He will not invest the capital to confirm a conservative.”

[RELATED: Reality Check: What Trump’s Love of Eminent Domain Tells You About His Values]

Cruz added, “whether it’s Hillary, Bernie or Donald Trump. The Second Amendment will go away.”

“He says you’re wrong. He says he will and he says your judgment should be questioned because you supported John Roberts,” said Stephanopoulos.


Cruz said, “Listen, number one, I did not appoint John Roberts. George W. Bush did. Now once the president made the appointment, I supported that nomination. That was a mistake.”

Supreme Court Authorizes Warrantless Stops & Searches Based on Anonymous Tips

Washington, D.C., April 24, 2014- On Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that allows police to stop and search a driver based exclusively on an anonymous tip.

In a 5-4 split decision, the court ruled that the reliance on an anonymous call is reasonable due to the fact that “a 911 call has some features that allow for identifying and tracking callers.” The justices atypically didn’t split along standard ideological lines as two of the most conservative justices, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia, respectively wrote the majority opinion and dissent.

The Supreme Court has previously given the police the authority to act on anonymous tips, but requires sufficient detail so that law enforcement has a basis of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

 Justice Scalia decried this ruling as “A freedom-destroying cocktail.”

In the case, Prado Navarette v. California, an anonymous tip of reckless driving was called in to 911. Officers responded but didn’t see any evidence of the alleged reckless driving, which was interpreted as implying drunken driving, after following the truck for a number of miles. The subsequent stop and search resulted in officers finding marijuana.

Justice Thomas claimed in the majority opinion that the 911 tip, that a pickup truck ran the caller off the road, was reliable enough for a traffic stop to be allowed without violating the constitutional rights of the driver.

In Justice Scalia’s scathing dissent he asserts:

“The Court’s opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail consisting of two parts patent falsity: (1) that anonymous 911 reports of traffic violations are reliable so long as they correctly identify a car and its location, and (2) that a single instance of careless or reckless driving necessarily supports a reasonable suspicion of drunkenness.”

He goes on to state that:

“Law enforcement agencies follow closely our judgments on matters such as this, and they will identify at once our new rule: So long as the caller identifies where the car is, anonymous claims of a single instance of possibly careless or reckless driving, called in to 911, will support a traffic stop. This is not my concept, and I am sure would not be the Framers’, of a people secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Justice Scalia was joined in his dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Elana Kagan, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Here are a few of the other key points from the dissent:

“Drunken driving is a serious matter, but so is the loss of our freedom to come and go as we please without police interference. To prevent and detect murder we do not allow searches without probable cause or targeted Terry stops without reasonable suspicion. We should not do so for drunken driving either. After today’s opinion all of us on the road, and not just drug dealers, are at risk of having our freedom of movement curtailed on suspicion of drunkenness, based upon a phone tip, true or false, of a single instance of careless driving.”

“All the malevolent 911 caller need do is assert a traffic violation, and the targeted car will be stopped, forcibly if necessary, by the police. If the driver turns out not to be drunk (which will almost always be the case), the caller need fear no consequences even if 911 knows his identity.”

The implications of this ruling will most likely be far reaching. With the current ruling in effect, someone with a vendetta can simply make an anonymous call to 911 and that will be sufficient to pull a person over and search. This ruling is a serious blow to liberty and what was left of the 4th Amendment.


Follow Jay on Facebook and on Twitter @SirMetropolis

Justice Scalia on WWII Internment Camps: “Kidding Yourself If You Think The Same Will Not Happen Again”

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia warned that modern day internment scenarios, similar to those of Japanese internment camps in the U.S. during WWII, could potentially happen again given the right political climate.

While at the University of Hawaii law school on Monday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in response to a question about the court’s 1944 decision in Korematsu v. United States which upheld convictions for violating an order to report to an internment camp for Gordon Hirabayashi and Fred Korematsu, said, “It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again, in a time of war. It’s no justification but it is the reality.”

Justice Scalia went on to say, “Well of course Korematsu was wrong. And I think we have repudiated in a later case. But you are kidding yourself if you think the same will not happen again.” He went on to quote a Latin expression meaning, “In times of war, laws fall silent.”

These statements by Justice Scalia lend serious legitimacy to the fears that have been expressed by organizations such as People Against the NDAA (PANDA). Their opposition to sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens on U.S. soil without due process of law, now seems extremely prescient after Scalia’s recent remarks. These statements by Scalia hopefully assist in awakening the masses to the potential for abuse that resides within the NDAA.

The candid comments by Justice Scalia are a vivid reminder of the fragile nature of the fleeting freedoms we often hold as inalienable rights. A seeming warning from a Supreme Court Justice that the law alone isn’t protection enough and that the citizenry needs to remain ever vigilant.

Follow Jay on Facebook and on Twitter @SirMetropolis