The issue is whether or not it is constitutionally cool for law enforcement to attach a GPS device to a vehicle without a warrant and then surveil that vehicle indefinitely.

It seems like such a softball question. OF COURSE YOU NEED A FUCKING WARRANT! WHAT IN THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH YOU?

And this is how my mornings with the radio have gone.

Radio Personality: …argued that no warrant would have been required to follow Antoine Jones using human beings.

Me: 24 HOURS A DAY? FOR A MONTH? HOW MUCH WOULD THAT HAVE COST? AND JUSTIFIED ON WHAT BASIS?

Radio Personality: …arguing that, in instances where law enforcement did not have the requisite probable cause to get a warrant, the GPS surveillance could be used to help obtain that probable cause.

Me: THE SURVEILLANCE IS TO GET THE PROBABLE CAUSE? WHAT THE FUCK? ARE WE LIVING IN RAND MCNALLY, WHERE THEY WEAR HATS ON THEIR FEET AND HAMBURGERS EAT PEOPLE?

Radio Personality: …Dreeben, representing the Department of Justice, cited Katz, the ruling that people have no reasonable expectation to privacy on public roadways.

Me: BUT DUDE, IT’S MY CAR! YOU CAN’T JUST START ATTACHING SHIT TO MY CAR! DO I HAVE NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT YOU WILL NOT ATTACH STUFF TO MY PANTS BECAUSE I BROUGHT THEM WITH ME INTO PUBLIC?

Radio Personality: No.

And so on.

Today, The Supremes ruled unanimously that the installation of GPS devices did, in fact, require a warrant (full opinion, PDF). And they did so in basically the narrowest, most tepid way possible. Justice Scalia, representing the majority, basically said that the act of trespass that occurs in the device’s installation constitutes a “search,” which is why it falls afoul of the Fourth Amendment.

If this ruling were an erection, Scalia would be saying, “This has never happened to me, baby. I guess I shouldn’t have eaten that second piece of pie.”

Justice Alito, in more tumescent counterpoint, wrote:

The court’s reasoning largely disregards what is really important (the use of a GPS for the purpose of long-term tracking) and instead attaches great significance to something that most would view as relatively minor (attaching to the bottom of a car a small, light object that does not interfere in any way with the car’s operation).

And I could not agree with Justice Alito more. While law enforcement attaching stuff to my car pisses me off, the physical surveillance mechanism is the least problematic part of the practice. Alito continues:

“…physical intrusion is now unnecessary to many forms of surveillance. With increasing regularity, the Government will be capable of duplicating the monitoring undertaken in this case by enlisting factory- or owner-installed vehicle tracking devices or GPS-enabled smartphones.

Per Justice Scalia, though, spectacularly and willfully kicking the can down the road, “The present case does not require us to answer that question.”

Forbes was quoted as stating:

Tomorrow, the House of Representatives will have the same opportunity to reaffirm our national motto and directly confront a disturbing trend of inaccuracies and omissions, misunderstandings of church and state, rogue court challenges, and efforts to remove God from the public domain by unelected bureaucrats. As our nation faces challenging times, it is appropriate for Members of Congress and our nation – like our predecessors – to firmly declare our trust in God, believing that it will sustain us for generations to come.

Whew, well that should put the matter to rest.

One disturbing example that Representative Forbes cited was a speech President Obama delivered at the University of Indonesia in which he stated that our national motto was E Pluribus Unum, which set some sphincters a’twitching on Capitol Hill.

What got me cackling was that NPR closed the piece by stating that the national motto may be offensive to those who do not, in fact, trust in God. I’ve got to use that line. “It’s not that I don’t believe in God, I just don’t trust the bastard.”

Victor Garber is one of my favorite actors working. I’ve been following him for years, but (slow on the uptake, true to form) it was only last week when I noticed that he has a comedy ear. Now that I’ve noticed it, I can’t stop noticing it. Several years ago I was stung on the ear by a yellowjacket while mowing the lawn. For days afterward one of my ears was preposterously swollen, but it still registered only an embarassingly distant second to Mssr. Garber’s natural asymmetry. I’m not kidding, I’ve even picked up on the fact that DPs give it special consideration when lighting scenes.

Dude, ear.

Peace Officer: Do you know why I pulled you over?

Me: Oh good! You must have found my television.

(With thanks to the chaps of Top Gear)

Gendarme: Do you know how fast you were going?

Me: I open the bidding at 73!

If you deliver either of these lines with a big, friendly smile on your face, you might even avoid getting sodomized repeatedly with a plunger handle.

Well done, boys. I’ve never been so proud.

The parking lot of the company I work for. Seeing this is a daily source of amusement.