BITCH NOW IT’S PERSONAL! There will be an army of girls from the Lost Generation donning their Wonder Woman underoos and grabbing pitchforks and torches coming for you! I’m pretty sure Mandalay will lead the charge.
The good news is, guess this means her can’t-keep-her-fool-mouth-shut ass won’t be playing Wonder Woman in the sure-to-be-super-awesome Wonder Woman movie. -MATC
In the first case of its type, a federal judge in California has ruled that police can forcibly take DNA samples, including drawing blood with a needle, from Americans who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime. (via azspot)
U.S. Magistrate JudgeGregory Hollows ruled on Thursday that a federal law allowing DNA samples upon arrest for a felony was constitutional and did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Hollows, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, said the procedure was no more invasive or worrisome than fingerprinting or a photograph. “The court agrees that DNA sampling is analogous to taking fingerprints as part of the routine booking process upon arrest,” he wrote, calling it “a law enforcement tool that is a technological progression from photographs and fingerprints.”
Holy shit. This is unbelievable. The point is not that DNA testing is physically invasive; it is that it lasts FOREVER. If you are arrested, but not convicted!, the government has the power to be able to track and label you for the rest of your life. I wouldn’t be surprised if this goes all the way to the Supreme Court. )Magistrate Judges are nobodies, anyway.) -M
I don’t like the idea of this, but is CODIS/DNA databases really that different from the computerized fingerprint databases that are already out there? What is a good Constitutional argument against collecting DNA as part of identifying and processing someone at arrest? I don’t think the invasiveness thing is going to get anyone very far. It’s a search, for sure, but it’s a search incident to arrest. Once you’re arrested, you can pretty much throw your expectation of privacy about your person out the window. I want to come up with a good argument against this, but we did crim procedure today in review so I’m mired in 4th Am. -MATC
chronicfail:Complete with monkeys in space photo gallery
OMG SPACE MONKEYS ARE MY FAVORITE!!!!!! I have fond memories of going to the Air and Space Museum with Dave and cracking up about the space monkey exhibit. The poor monkey has this surprised and terrified look on his face, like he’s thinking “HOLY SHIT THESE DOUCHENOZZLES ARE NOT ABOUT TO STRAP A ROCKET TO MY MONKEY ASS AND BLAST ME INTO SPACE! OH SHIT, YES THEY ARE! HOLY FUCKING SHIT I CAN’T BELIEVE THIS IS HAPPENING!” Good times. -MATC
I’ve been hearing a lot about gay marriages and speech and whatnot lately, and there seems to be some confusion about what your Constitutional rights actually are. So, everyone, let’s talk about state action.
Some of the rights afforded to you by the Constitution, such as the right to free speech, the right to protest, freedom of religion, equal protection, to name a few important ones, protect your right to do all this stuff without government interference. So, before you start decrying the violation of your right to free speech or whatever, stop and think: Is there state action here?
We’re not going to get too nuanced here, as this stuff can get pretty involved when there is hybrid state-private action, but let’s consider some basic scenarios:
Tumblr kicks you off because they don’t like the content of your blog: No state action, no 1st Am issue
The state refuses to give you a marriage license for your interracial marriage: YES state action, clearly prohibited by the 14th Am
A church refuses to sanction your marriage because they don’t like the gays: NO state action, also if that’s part of their religious beliefs, the state can’t compel the church to sanction your marriage because this violates the 1st Am
Notre Dame won’t let protestors on campus because they don’t like their tactics and/or their political views: NO state action, they can bar whomever they want from campus.
“Fans of National Socialism, ordinary Germans, the majority of Catholics, Protestants, and clergymen— even those who were not anti-Semites in the strict sense— refused to believe that their government could be capable of such monstrosity. We might do well to learn from their mistakes and remember that trusting governments (or accepting their more dubious explanations without critical inquiry) brands us with the guilt of those who quite simply looked away and kept pretending.”—
I’m sorry, but this “Catholics were silent tolerators of the Holocaust” stuff is bunch of bullshit nonsense. It’s well-documented that Pope Pius personally worked to rescue various persecuted individuals, Jewish and otherwise. Not to mention the fact that up to three million Polish Catholics were sent to concentration camps, usually for working against the Nazis. If you were found harboring someone in Poland, the Nazis sent you and your entire family to the camps. This type of nonsense is an insult to those brave souls and to the thousands and thousands of other Catholic clergy and laypeople who were killed by the Nazis. -MATC