Democratic VP Hopeful Tim Walz Multitasks as a Fake Mechanic and a Lying...
You Mad, Bro? Gavin Newsom Is TICKED OFF About Californians Democratically Supporting Crim...
Jim Acosta Asks Harris Spox What Kind of Gun She Owns, Non-Answer Ensues...
Kamala Harris Plans to Give Speech in Atlanta to LIE to the Nation...
Twitter Wonders 'Who's in Charge' After Jill Biden Shockingly Presides Over Cabinet Meetin...
Former First Lady Michelle Obama Ruined School Lunches and Now is Tackling America's...
Rules for Thee: Kamala Harris Was Singing a VERY Different Tune About Self-Defense...
Scott Jennings Makes CNN Panelists' Heads Explode With Reality Check About Source of...
Lockdown Lovebirds! Doctor Couple Demanded School Closings While Engaging in Wild Adult Pa...
Is This the Best Trump Story Ever Told?
Kamala Harris' Husband Explains Why She's Not Responsible for Biden WH Failures (With...
CNN Host Abby Phillip Disputes Kamala As Gun Grabber but Ryan Girdusky Handily...
Oprah Also Presented a Nauseating Parade of Hollywood Celebrity Hypocrites Endorsing Harri...
Here's Kamala Harris on Gun Confiscation vs. What Would Happen to Somebody Who...
Muy ESTUPIDA! AOC Plays Her 'Latina Card' Defending Kamala the Border Czar and...

Julie Kelly Spots a Judge With SCOTUS Potential Who Knows 'the Whole Point of Our Constitution'

Twitchy/Meme

Yesterday, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled that geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment: 

a 5th Circuit panel held that so-called geofence warrants are unconstitutional. Such warrants seek location information within a certain area and time frame as a means to identify suspects; in the case of United States v. Smith, it was used to find robbers. In reaching its conclusion, the appeals court has split with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said recently in United States v. Chatrie that it didn’t count as a Fourth Amendment “search” when the government got two hours’ worth of location information from Google that had been voluntarily exposed by the defendant.

Such “circuit splits,” as they’re called, generally increase the chances of Supreme Court review, because the justices can resolve them to ensure uniformity across the country.

Advertisement

The ruling could have an effect on some of the government's January 6 cases, and Julie Kelly (@Julie_Kelly2) shared a constitutional gem from one of the judges:

This entire paragraph is great:

Geofence warrants are powerful tools for investigating and deterring crime. The defendants here engaged in a violent robbery—and likely would have gotten away with it, but for this new technology. So I fully recognize that our panel decision today will inevitably hamper legitimate law enforcement interests. But hamstringing the government is the whole point of our Constitution. Our Founders recognized that the government will not always be comprised of publicly-spirited officers—and that even good faith actors can be overcome by the zealous pursuit of legitimate public interests. “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” THE FEDERALIST No. 51, at 349 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Id. But “experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” Id. It's because of “human nature” that it's “necessary to control the abuses of government.” Id.

Advertisement

Crushed it! Another great line is "our decision today is not costless, but our rights are priceless."

But the FBI has yet to identify the RNC/DNC HQ pipe bomber suspect. Go figure.

If only more judges saw it that way.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement