Originally Posted by
law dawg
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.
It's sad that a US LEO (is that correct?) thinks that US citizens' opinions of what constitutes an important freedom do no matter "one damn bit". This is especially sad in light of the fact that most LEOs, in most cases, have the discretion to respect freedoms that are not SCOTUSly protected (for better or for worse, the US Constitution and its protections are meaningless; the only rights that have nationwide meaning are those that are SCOTUS-recognized).
I think US citizens', as well as everyone else's, opinions, matter a great deal when it comes to a respect for fundamental freedoms.