Supreme Court

'Everything Has Been Criminalized,' Says Neil Gorsuch as He Pushes for Stronger Fourth Amendment Protections

The justice weighs in during oral arguments in Lange v. California.


In 2019, the California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, ruled that a police officer may always enter a suspect's home without a warrant if the officer is in pursuit of the suspect and has probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a misdemeanor. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether that ruling should be overturned.

Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed to have a problem with the lower court's decision. Under the common law, Gorsuch pointed out during oral arguments in Lange v. California, the police did not "have the power to enter the home in pursuit of any and all misdemeanor crimes." The framers of the Fourth Amendment built on that common law understanding. So "why would we create a rule that is less protective than what everyone understands to be the case of the Fourth Amendment as original matter?"

Gorsuch also seemed to have a problem with California's argument that an officer in pursuit of a suspected felon should always be able to follow that suspect into the home without a warrant. It is "settled," argued California Deputy Solicitor General Samuel Harbourt, "that officers may enter a home without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe a fleeing suspect has committed a felony."

Gorsuch offered a different view. "We live in a world in which everything has been criminalized. And some professors have even opined that there's not an American alive who hasn't committed a felony in some—under some state law," Gorsuch told the state's lawyer. "And in a world like that, why doesn't it make sense to retreat back to the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment, which I'm going to oversimplify, but generally says that you get to go into a home without a warrant if the officer sees a violent action or something that's likely to lead to imminent violence….Why isn't that the right approach?"

In other words, since plenty of felonies do not involve violence, why should the police get to categorically evade the Fourth Amendment in such non-violent felony pursuit cases?

Because the common law allowed the police to pursue felons into the home, Harbourt argued in reply.

But "what qualified as a felony at common law," Gorsuch countered, "were very few crimes and they were all punished by the death penalty usually." By contrast, Gorsuch stressed, "today pretty much anything or everything can be called a felony."

In short, under Gorsuch's view, the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement would only be waived in such cases if the police were pursuing someone suspected of committing a genuinely violent or dangerous crime, a category that necessarily excludes a great many suspected misdemeanants and felons. If adopted by the Supreme Court, that approach would limit police power in these sorts of cases.

NEXT: From 9/11 to COVID, Every Emergency Means Bigger Government

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Not my favorite justice, he’s way too accomodating for the state, but Gorsuch is absolutely correct in this regard. Something is not Constitutional just because cops want it to be Constitutional.

    1. I don’t even see the practical point for needing to enter the house absent some exigent circumstance. What, are you afraid that having to call for backup and sit on the house while you await either the warrant or for the suspect to reemerge is going to blue ball your beatdown boner?

      1. Exactly. But too many people (most?) think we’re supposed to make life easy on LEOs. And, as some have said to me “Why do you care if someone enters your home if you have nothing to hide? And if you have something to hide they should be able to enter your home.”

        1. They think that is a reason to create an exception to the 4th (and 5th) amendment, but fail to realize that catch-22 of logic is exactly the reason why have those amendments in the first place

          1. ░A░M░A░Z░I░N░G░ ░J░O░B░S░
            I basically make about $8,000-$12,000 a month online. It’s enough to comfortably replace my old jobs income, especially considering I only work aboutQEu 10-13 hours a week from home. I was amazed how easy it was after I tried it copy below web.

            COPY HERE———->> GoOgLE CaSh 1

            1. I get paid 140 $ each hour for work at home on PC MAKE MONY. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however my old buddy is gaining 65000$/month VFE to month by carrying out this responsibility and she gave me how.

              Give it a shot on following website……..VISIT HERE

          2. And James Madison said that entering to search and seize without a proper warrant is tyranny! That is pretty clear- go get your warrant first (and let us drop the “no knock” bullshit as well and flash-bang grenades also). All the tactics criminals use to commit crime are legal when LEOs do it.
            Maybe some have something to hide but we ALL have something to protect! Lawyers, judges and justices love their stupid debates wherein they pick apart every niggling detail while charging us by the hour.

            1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. wert Every Person join this and working easily by open just open this website and follow instructions
              COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. READ MORE

      2. Essentially, from what it sounds, officers could only enter a house if the criminal were in the act of a crime that would result in the death penalty if they were tried for it.

        It’s a clear acknowledgement that people die when officers enter the home.

        1. No, he is speaking more generally. The California court decision said that even in cases of misdemeanor, officers should be able to enter without warrant. Seriously, so you go home with some trashy looking bimbo from a bar and because the cop thinks she might be a pro and you look drunk, this gives them a right to breach your front door? Yeah, that could actually be under this California court decision.

          But Gorsuch went further stating that even felony status shouldn’t automatically give an excuse to kick the door in and go in without warrant unless there is violence or a threat of such. For instance, tax evasion is a felony. Seriously, do we need an armed assault on a house because someone doubled up on his depreciation? Cover the back door and wait for the documents. What’s the harm?

          His argument essentially is that the home is a protected sanctuary under the 4th and sanctuary cannot be defiled by the police for any damn reason they want when literally everything including not showing up to traffic court is a crime. I’m for giving police the benefit of the doubt, but the 4th has to actually mean something.

          1. I don’t think most of the commentators here will identify with your hypothetical example.
            It reminds me of 2 computer programmers catching up over coffee:
            – you won’t believe what happened last night!
            – what happened?
            – I went to a bar and I met this beautiful girl
            – and then?
            – then we started dancing, and she was really sensual
            – ooh, and then?
            – then we were drinking, and I finally kissed her
            – wow, and then?
            – then we walked back to my flat and we walked in, and she jumped on me
            – wow, then what happened?
            – she started tearing off my clothes, and I was undressing her
            – wow, and then?
            – then I bent her over my work desk, right next to my new laptop
            – wow, so what processor does is it running?

            1. Ugh. We need an edit feature. I screwed up the punchline. “What processor is it running?”

              1. Daily Online Jobs ” has been a great platform for the only Trusted Way to start their online career by providing reliable online jobs. For joining you will only need a Laptop or Computer. Your daily work will be from 10 minutes to 60 minutes. All the details of joining and working are already given in site with screenshots and video guides in home tabs. For any detail or problem you can contact us on our Facebook page.
                Visit our site today to join Online jobs in US & UK…. JOBS APP

              2. Daily Online Jobs ” has been a great platform for the only Trusted Way to start their online career by providing reliable online jobs. For joining you will only need a Laptop or Computer. Your daily work will be from 10 minutes to 60 minutes.CMs All the details of joining and working are already given in site with screenshots and video guides in home tabs. For any detail or problem you can contact us on our Facebook page.
                Visit our site today to join Online jobs in US & UK…. JOBS APP

            2. Sadly, I know people that would be more excited over the computer than some hot girl trying to do stuff with them.

          2. You lost me and lost your sound judgement at “giving police the benefit of the doubt”! Update: Police themselves refer to their taking the witness stand as “testilying”. ‘Doubt’ needs to go in favor of the accused who is innocent until a jury finds otherwise. You forgot that part didn’t you…hope you don’t forgot the importance of a jury which is addressed in the Constitution. Look it up. Then try to find anything in there about plea bargains.

      3. I don’t see the practical point in not entering. That’s the American taxpayer paying when police surround a house and wait for a warrant. That’s also the taxpayer paying for police who are tied up waiting for a circumstance where a warrant would be issued nearly 100% of the time.

        The notion of using Constitutional rights to justify government coercion via taxation sounds backwards to me.

        1. Just think of all that taxpayer money wasted on things like trials and due process when the police could just come to your house now, barge right in without no steenkin’ warrants, and throw you in jail right now for all the crimes that everyone knows you’ve already committed.

          1. Crimes like posting memes? Bash down that door! Flashbang that fucker! Smoke him right out from under his keyboard!


            1. No, how about crimes like stealing votes, which you are evidently totally in favor of. Even then, there should be things like due process, even if it ‘wastes’ taxpayer money.

              1. There is no crime of “stealing votes.” You are completely making it up, moron.

                1. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month.MHb I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

                  Heres what I do………. JOBS APP

              2. Damn, there’s a full moon or some shit tonight when I’m agreeing with Jeff. Maybe it’s just a fool moon.

                The California court decision authorized police breaches for just about anything they want. If that isn’t a prelim to totalitarian authority, I don’t know what is. Literally public drunkenness would fall under the court’s rule.

                Yeah, 99% of the time the cops are going to have a legit target, but if there’s no immediate threat to others, how about a cooler head approach, making sure the Ts are crossed, and preserving the 4th as meaningful instead of something to sidestep?

              3. Speaking of stealing votes, do you think that sort of thing should be investigated, or did that only apply back in 2016?

        2. It’s not supposed to be a practical point. They are supposed to respect the laws they operate under.

      4. That’s the best part. Cops aren’t going to enter the house of a violent person without backup and time for a warrant.

        They only enter the houses of felonious drug possessors when they know they can score an easy arrest.

        1. Oh, I should have scrolled down before commenting, you already made my point, lol.

      5. Somewhat ironically, if you actually are dangerous most police will wait outside for backup. Or a SWAT team.

      6. I don’t like this disrespect for homeowner’s rights.

        Cornering the suspect looks like a Given at that point (per article). As for the homeowner, this were where justice should be enforced — not by police. The police should remain alert outside to see whether the homeowner has matters under control. This were where the people rightly rule, from their own respective houses. The people — such as those in good standing and not under pledged fealty to the law of felons — are the police.

        Now there may be exceptions, and any homeowner could file for a licence to let police enter the home when such a threat exists. Maybe grandma doesn’t feel like she can carry the oxygen tank and reload at the same time, for example, and wants the station to know. This is not inconsistent with a client-service provider relationship.

        So, as badly as po!ice may want to catch a fugitive suspect, I’m more concerned about the rights of the homeowner and the “innocent until proven guilty” supposition that were not incorrect to make about anyone out there and naturally running around, going into any house for reasons such as the state normally has no de facto right to know.

    2. Gorsuch is probably the second best justice on the 4th, after Sotomayor.

      1. Exactly. He can never be the first best justice; his skin is too light:

        I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
        Sonia Sotomayor

        1. I have read the Constitution which is what decisions of the Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be based on and I did not see anything that implied skin color or race had anything to do with making Constitutional decisions. The remark by Justice Sotomayor is totally racist and un-Constitutional.

          1. “totally racist” – yes
            “un-constitutional” – no. Nothing in the Constitution says you can’t be a racist. On the contrary, the First Amendment explicitly protects her right to make offensive and even racist speech.

          2. Oh she’s def a racist. A lot of them are.

            When I was in law school, the black female dean decided that we needed to have a “wise Latina woman day.“

            We were REQUIRED to not have class and go to some thing where the brown lady professors gloated over a room of mostly pasty white dude students about how awesome brown wymxn are. You could cut the tension with a knife.

  2. When everything’s a felony nothing is a felony. Or something.

    1. -1000

    2. Start working from home! Great job for everyone! stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income…You can work this job As part time or As A full time job.You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection…Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom…nhrt You can have your first check by the end of this week…

      Lifetime Opportunity This is what I do—— ONLINE-JOBS-USA

  3. The law in the modern democratic conception is supposed to give criminals a sporting chance. Or at least make government work very hard before it can punish you.

    For example, I say if you can run faster than a cop, they don’t get to shoot you for fleeing. They should try eating fewer donuts instead.

    1. Its not so much to give them a sporting chance, but ensure that justice will always err on the side of the accused, IE better to let 100 guilty men go free than imprison 1 innocent

      In your example, better to let him get away and find out he was the murderer you were looking for, then shoot him in the back and find out he just owed a few parking tickets

      1. Tell it to all the fraidy-cat socons pretending to be libertarians.

        Around here people were not only guilty, but collectively guilty, merely for exercising their first amendment rights in the vicinity of an arson.

        1. Well yes of course. How else could CNN report every night that the “protests were 51% peaceful” in front of the blazing infernos if there weren’t the “peaceful” ones?

          I forget, were you equally making this point about the 10s of thousands of protestors in DC when a hundred or so went into the capital building or were you all about “the riots”?

          1. I don’t think your gripe is with adjectives.

        2. “Around here people were not only guilty, but collectively guilty, merely for exercising their first amendment rights”

          Weren’t you just advocating prison camps for political badthink the other day?
          Pretty big 180 in rhetoric, Tony. I hope this newfound interest in freedom sticks.

          1. They’re called schools.

            1. Is this some sort of joke?

              1. Let him have this. He thinks he’s being witty.

  4. There should be a law against that.

    1. There ought to be a law against people saying “there ought to be a law..”.

      I’ll go turn myself in now.

      1. You can’t turn yourself in, there is a law against that.

  5. Thinking for yourself and speaking out on issues is now criminal. Please don’t do that anymore! (sarc)

    1. Please tune in to CNN or MSNBC for the approved government thoughts and words. Thank you.

  6. Gorsuch may have a point on this, but he really lost me with the whole transgender revisionism on Title VII. Really hard to take him seriously on anything after that.

    1. Yes, the dissent noted this was “legislating from the bench” which is something I understand Gorsuch to have always opposed. The expansion of Title VII to include bias on the basis of sex to include gay and trans persons may be well intentioned, but again something to be decided by elected members of Congress, not judges. In that sense Gorsuch betrayed his supposed leanings.

      I however remain hopeful regarding his role on SCOTUS, and the conclusion that “We live in a world in which everything has been criminalized” is encouraging.

      Speaking of which I am only at two felonies today and it’s almost 2:30; better get cracking if I am going to hit my daily third.

      1. Post a meme.

        These days, if the government censors disapprove of the message, you are looking at ten years in a federal prison.

        1. I thought you were referring to Bostock v. Clayton; agree the current interpretation of memes as election interference is rather broad, but don’t get the connection with Gorsuch and “everything is criminalized….” oooooh.

          Just decided what my third felony today might be.

        2. Yeah sure, posting a meme trying to steal votes is no different than posting a meme advocating for tax cuts. They’re both oppression of conservatives!

          1. So you agree that people should be arrested and imprisoned for posting memes? Just making sure we get you on the record for the next time you try to be pretend to be a libertarian.

            1. I agree that people should be prosecuted for stealing votes, whether that happens in the form of a meme or not. Do you?

              1. Cite the precise criminal statute that prohibits “stealing votes.” Once you do so, explain how a vote is “stolen.” Then explain why that statute, with that particular understanding of “stealing,” applies to Ricky Vaughn.

                1. Should it be illegal to steal votes? Yes or no?

                  1. Cite the precise criminal statute that prohibits “stealing votes.” Once you do so, explain how a vote is “stolen.” Then explain why that statute, with that particular understanding of “stealing,” applies to Ricky Vaughn.

                    1. Not the question I asked. And as typical you aren’t going to argue in good faith.

                      Not surprised that the “election integrity” crowd over here is fine with people stealing votes, as long as they are votes for someone else’s candidate.

                    2. What meme? What happened?

                    3. In response to scull ER crusher, someone posted a meme which convinced some idiots not to vote. I think that’s what happened. I wouldn’t consider that stealing a vote, just like saying “don’t go voting for those thieves” is not stealing a vote (even if I am lying, assuming the candidates are not actual thieves).

                  2. Get the fuck out of here with your good faith nonsense. You don’t get to make up your own laws. The fact that you are excusing the government in doing just that is an indictment of your character as an authoritarian piece of shit.

                  3. How do you “steal a vote”? Does someone walk in to a polling place and physically grab a ballot box?

                    1. I think Jeff was having a hallucination again. Even if I gave him all of the above, I’m not sure how he suggests that posting a meme of any kind is tantamount to “stealing a vote”, even if that could exist. Perhaps it’s a thought crime of some sort that he’d like to impose.

              2. How do you steal a vote with a meme?

    2. Yeah, that wasn’t great, but I’ll take it if he’s otherwise good on amendments 1, 2 and 4.

      1. So your an apologist for quartering soldiers against peoples will. I see how it is

        1. The Third Amendment is a real oddity. It was obviously something that bothered the Founding Fathers. But since then, it has rarely been invoked, and has never been interpreted by the Supreme Court.

          I guess they figured out early on that you could avoid the whole problem by taxing the populace and building barracks for the soldiers.

          1. It’s not an oddity for the time, nor currently in other parts of the world. Perhaps the fact that we have it means that we haven’t had to enforce it. Wouldn’t it be grand if the federal government had equal respect for the other articles and amendments?

            1. Not so much that we haven’t had to enforce it, as that we haven’t bothered to, I think. These cases where the cops take over somebody’s house during a standoff, because it provides a convenient vantage point, probably should be 3rd amendment cases.

              But, yes, they didn’t anticipate that the government would be taxing people so heavily it wouldn’t be tempted to violate the 3rd amendment.

          2. It’s the most successful of the Amendments…

  7. Posting memes in 2015 is still a crime tho, right?

    1. Stealing votes is, or ought to be, a crime, whether that theft occurs in meme form or not.

      You are undermining your own cause when you outright lie about what happened.

      Here again is the article describing what ACTUALLY happened when it comes to the guy arrested for “posting a meme”.

      Don’t lie about what happened, don’t try to defend every conservative who does something wicked, don’t try to frame every single event as an instance of conservative oppression, and maybe more people will take your legitimate, valid claims of oppression seriously.

      1. Professor Volokh would like to have a word with you.

        “[D]on’t try to defend every conservative who does something wicked.”

        Oh! The wickedness!

        1. I appreciate the article, but I think he’s wrong here. What Mackey did was beyond telling lies about the election. It was an act of fraud intended to deceive people into throwing away their votes. In a non-meme context, it is no different than if Mackey had posed as an elections official urging people to give him their absentee ballots. That is not mere speech, that is fraud. That you are willing to excuse such fraud and instead try to frame it all as Mackey being oppressed for mere speech shows the moral bankruptcy that the modern right has devolved into. When scumbags and criminals are treated as heroes and martyrs.

          1. “It was an act of fraud ….”

            And yet he isn’t charged with fraud.

            As usual, you are full of shit.


            1. It was still a fraudulent act even if he isn’t charged with specifically a statute called ‘fraud’. Get it now?

              1. No. I do not.

                You see, when you talk about legal issues, it is best to stick to the laws, rather than some shitty moral compass that you invent on the fly to justify every single one of your preexisting bad ideas.

          2. Oh, I see, you’re just being your disingenuous self again.

            Memes can’t steal votes and you’re not a fucking libertarian.

  8. The point of the law is to have everyone guilty of something at any point in time. That is how people can be controlled while the Gov pretends to be legitimate

    1. Ayn Rand wrote “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them.

      Therefore, it becomes handy to have a database of things you can charge people with should they challenge the authoritarian structure.

  9. You forgot to praise Trump for bringing us Gorsuch. Now that shallowness and vanity have defeated American constitutionalism and you guys got the guy you were cheering for, you can look forward to no more justices like Gorsuch.

    1. Trump [actually Graham and the Murder Turtle] did a pretty good job of filling all of those 200+ vacancies up until 2021; as for the future, that it up for grabs.

  10. Common law shouldn’t override common sense.

    In Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that truth can be hate speech and not protected by the constitution.

    So much for, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    The cancel culture at the highest level.

    1. The Canadian Supreme Court also ruled that their entire basis including notes and conversations regarding a ruling are protected from public view for 75 years. Only a group of criminals would protect themselves so thoroughly. They lost every bit of their dignity and credibility with that one but like Americans, that will simply become a procedural technicality and the public won’t be aware or question it after a year or so.

      1. Damn straight.

    2. Canada has no Bill of Rights and no serious check on their government’s power. For the most part they have avoided abusing that power because they are isolated from external threats. But the Canadian national character is passive-aggressive. Asserting on the one hand their good intentions while expecting everyone to accede to their demands.

      1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (French: La Charte canadienne des droits et libertés), often simply referred to as the Charter in Canada, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, forming the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of the government. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, along with the rest of the Act.

  11. can’t give the perp time to burn all the evidence of his misdemeanors

  12. How many times have non-violent offenders been killed, injured, or sustained property damage due to unnecessary misdemeanor searches? Lots and lots.

  13. I vote to make Justice Gorsuch the CJ….then he could kick butt telling the DIM socialist, a Independent Deplorable is a real American and that a communist is wanting to overthrow the US government by force…Maybe we can get the ban reinstated, I don’t recall it being repealed…

    1. Uncle Fester, is that you?

  14. Huh. Did not know that there was some supposed “felony exception” to the Fourth Amendment, at least as far as common law is concerned. This might be one reason why legislators classify more and more crimes as felonies.

    1. Did you know there was a “memes I disagree with” exception to the First Amendment?

      1. Hate speech, bro, it’s the latest and greatest way to take your rights.

      2. I’m beginning to think that you are in favor of a “meme exception” for criminal behavior.

        1. I am.

          Posting a meme should not be criminal. Ever.

          I know you disagree, and that is why I always make it a point to call you a stupid, pathetic, authoritarian piece of shit. You deserve every insult and expression of abuse hurled at you. Indeed, you seem to thrive on it, you fucking maggot.

    2. There’s also not supposed to be felony or any other excepting to the 2nd amendment, but they punted on that a long time ago.

  15. Well, Neil, maybe you should make your voting record at your lifetime appointment, reflective of that statement?

    Nah, nothing more than wishful thinking, you’ll turn out to be nothing more than another tool of the political establishment.

    I’m quickly beginning to realize that Thomas is the only SCOTUS member left who actually cares about that document they all swore to uphold and protect.

    If we’re depending on these lifetime appointees in black robes to protect our rights, we are truly screwed.

    1. “Thomas is the only SCOTUS member left who actually cares about that document they all swore to uphold and protect.”

      This 100%

  16. The Fourth Amendment is the second-most abused after the Tenth. The Fourth is very clear but judges have allowed it to be chipped away by extremely dubious cases. If you have reason to believe some kid has more than an ounce of pot on them, does that allow you to kick in his parents’ front door? What aspect of the kid’s crime makes it okay to violate the rights of the parents? We need reasonable case law. If the person just shot up a playground, go for it. But if they were selling un-taxed cigarettes, get a warrant.

    1. No. If the person allegedly just shot up a playground but is not currently harming or threatening anyone, take your evidence to a judge and get a warrant. You should be able to break in without a warrant only if you think there is a violent crime happening _now_ – and you and your police department should have strict liability for damages if it turns out you were mistaken.

    2. Evil used to come from hair, and hair would be sufficient to grow worms under spontaneous generation theory.

      Similarly gifted persons brought out the supposition that cannabis would turn Other Races into available sex criminals so as to excuse the probable cause Foot through the fourth amendment Door. Such derilection of common legal sense politicians wrote into law so as to make people guilty without any evidence that an offense had been committed, thereby saving the trouble of having to be guilty by any sensical standard that relies on evidence that action causes guilt however waged.

  17. Old news.
    “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” ~ Ayn Rand

  18. But Neil, what do we do with all the SWAT teams and all their equipment?

  19. Come on Reason how about:
    1. in charge.
    2. HR 127 an asault on the second amendment.
    3. The Truth hearing so shutdown NewsMax, AON and Fox News. An asault on the Second amendment.
    4. the 1.9 trillion dollar dollar Democratic wish list bill
    A dictatorship is being set up in the USA and Reason is yammering about warrants.

    1. You’re not wrong. There are much bigger things though I don’t think that an article about the 4th is in bad form. Regardless, at least now they are talking about State overstep rather than the articles of last month whining about snowball fights in England and something about menstruating prison visitors in NY while Reason’s new president was deliberately wiping out jobs, slashing the nation’s energy future, enabling a nuclear Iran, preparing massive giveaways, and opening the borders.

      It should be noted that one has to go back nearly 100 of the latest articles to find anything remotely concerning Biden’s policies, and even then nothing about his EOs. Seriously, this after about 80% of Reason’s articles whining during the last administration about everything right down to Trump’s choice of breakfast cereal.

  20. 1 HR1 all elections come under the Federal government while the Democrats are in charge.
    Sorry, something happened when I posted.

  21. There are too many Americans that have no idea what it was like to be free years ago compared to today. The government has slowly found ways to reduce the sovereignty of individual liberty to the point of America being worse then countries we pointed to as something we never wanted to become. The shinning light of liberty has become so dim you are more likely to be arrested for looking for it then finding it.
    When people give up their liberty to the government they lose the sense of community to what they perceive to be safer and more secure and turn over the responsibility to law enforcement what should be their commitment to a safe place to live and raise families. Soon criminals take over some communities and instill fear of reprisal if law abiding members of the community oppose them because they are too distant from their neighbors which would give them strength of numbers.
    Government is never the answer and usually a large part of the problem once they gain too much power. Americans need to take back their country and continue the experiment of our Founders. There is still a small chance if Americans instead of fighting each other would unite and form a bond allowing individual freedom of even those you disagree with. The movement, The Convention of States is such a chance that could be at least a beginning. All Americans should at least explore it and consider what they offer and support. Actions always speak louder then words and numbers create strength and power.

    1. You have to kill the constitution to save it?

      Just what I was thinking!

      So exactly how do you plan to butcher the constitution?

    2. Thanks, just looked up The Convention of States . The mission statement resonates with me, and I agree we are rapidly approaching a point of no return in regard to federal power and overreach, no to mention unaccountability. I will delve into it.

  22. Thank Gorsuch for defending our freedoms. If it weren’t for libertarian leading justices, the government here would have the same power that China’s government has in requiring an anal swab to check you for Covid. There need to be limits to the force government can use against us, and the government intrusion shouldn’t be worse than a suspected crime. In Greenwood Village, CO, they chased a shoplifter who went into someone’s home, the police destroyed the home in an attempt to get him, and left the homeowner with the bill.

  23. Glad to hear when a Justice like the Neil Gorsuch pushes for less government control. In my opinion he is not perfect, but none are ever perfect. I like that he seems to have a mind of his own and willing to challenge the government.

    In reality we can’t get to a stateless society overnight and probably not in several lifetimes. This will be a long hard slog whittling down the powers of government and returning the power to individuals.

    We must listen to the concerns of voters and demonstrate why less government is better in order to convince voters to cast meaningful ballots that reduce the size and power of government.

    Even though Libertarianism is truly logical, voters react to emotional arguments. We must meet voters where they are and slowly bring them towards the logical Libertarian argument. Blasting the voter out of the gate is a non-starter.

    Small government died through slow incremental changes. The only approach back is to slowly build a consensus that pressures that government to relinquish their power and reduce the size of government. Without the consensus of the voters and power of the people, the size and power of the government will only increase.

  24. John Kerry is Skull and Bones and part of the Lucifer controlled secret societies. Not just the U.S. but the rest of the World. If you haven’t researched it then shut your ignorant mouth. Why 33 degrees in Freemasonry? How old was JESUS CHRIST when a secret society of his time, the Pharisees inveigled his crucifixion? HE was 33 when murdered. Whether it be a 3 or a combination of 3’s the idea is the same. To mock GOD. To mock the Trinity. To mock the resurrection of CHRIST in communications with one another. Clandestine yet in the open. To mock you, the “uninitiated”. Try this on for size. The year Joe Biden runs for and steals the presidency is 2020. His boss, Lucifer has it in his wicked mind to make 2021 the time of the Beast of Revelations whose Mark is 6 hundred, 3 score (3 x 20) and 6 as told in the prophecy of Revelations 13: 16-17. So what do we get when we divide the year 2020 by 666. Well lo and behold we come up with 3.0330. Exactly what Joe Biden has on the front of the podium every time he makes a speech. It is numerology and it is only one of the devices used by the profane to communicate. It is also not a coincidence that Hunter Biden received 17 payments for a no show position on the board of Burisma at $83,333.33 a month. And up until I started blogging about it Skull and Bones, G.W. Bush’s home at 10141 Daria Place in Dallas was appraised at r e a l t o r . c o m for $3,333,333. I ain’t smart enough to make this stuff up. Diane Reidy, House of Representatives Stenographer knows the truth. Look her up. She was dragged from the House chamber while shouting, “You can not serve two masters, GOD will not be mocked.”

  25. When half of America identifies as Protestant why is the Supreme Court 6 Roman Catholics, 2 Jews and 1 Episcopalian? We live in a Satanic world controlled by the Illuminati, mystery religions and secret societies.

    1. Hey Q!

      Trump’s Catholic Supreme Court nominees all were recommended by the Federalist Society. Obviously that’s a group of Satanic pedophiles.

  26. “But “what qualified as a felony at common law,” Gorsuch countered, “were very few crimes and they were all punished by the death penalty usually.” By contrast, Gorsuch stressed, “today pretty much anything or everything can be called a felony.””

    A point I’ve frequently made. When you talk about how felonies allow revocation of rights, you have to remember that felonies were originally crimes you could be executed for; ANYTHING that left you alive was considered a lesser sentence!

    Applying this reasoning to offenses that in the founding era wouldn’t have been crimes at all, and for most of our history merely misdemeanors, is an absurd over-extension.

  27. In relationships, the main thing now is understanding and trust in each other, you can get this when you start communicating with girls on a dating site. You will easily understand what each girl needs and how long they dream of family and love. I think this is a great excuse for you to make new acquaintances.

    1. Protect yourself from screen invaders. Some girls like to handle everything they see and would crawl out of your monitor if it is not adequately protected from clever hacker stunts. The 4th amendment can be applied in this case by the homeowner if guarding the screen during operation and up to point of power down.

      Beings crawling out of sceeens have long been a theme of popular screen media, and it may be only a matter of time before someone in the likeness of anyone you may have dated attempts to power through your screen as if it were a candle. But you can power off your screen and save time and trouble in the process! You may also establish checkpoints along your screen’s border to keep likenesses on the proper side of your computer’s screen.

      4th amendment screen entry vigilance tablets: Order now and you can get a free screen protector with a bottle of pixel polish in limited supply for a short time only!

  28. OT, but I watched an interview of Gorsuch on PBS recently, and found his tone of voice the most condescending of anyone in public life that I have seen. Very irritating.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.