Originally Posted by
ralfp
To repeat the point I made in the post you quoted, that is totally irrelevant when talking about "freedoms that are not necessarily respected/acknowledged by the SCOTUS's interpretation, or any other interpretation, of the Constitution. "
Some people actually cherish freedoms that are not Constitutionally protected. The freedom to engage in flatulence in one's own home may not be recognized by the SCOTUS as a Constitutionally protected right, but I'm pretty sure you consider it an important freedom.
This is not some esoteric "freedom" we're talking about here. This a core issue - when can the government seize a citizen. SCOTUS has ruled that they can under certain limited instances and what requirements they must meet to do so. You think their reasoning in the case of BP checkpoints is incorrect while I think their reasoning is sound. At the end of the day neither one of our opinions matter one damn bit, it's just fun discussion.