You don’t need legal training to read and understand a SC opinion. You just need good reading comprehension since most of the opinions are written in a fairly straightforward manner.

As Carlos said above, the evidence is gone by the time you have a warrant. Quite frankly, the title is an abject lie. The supreme court did not rule that anyone who drives on the road is consenting to a blood draw. They ruled that in this case, in which:

This is a tough one because it woudl clearly seem like a 4th amendment violation and that is probably our most sacred amendment in terms of keeping the government out of our lives.

In the time it takes to get a search warrant, the guy would have had a chance to metabolize enough alcohol to destroy the evidence of a DUI. The time sensitive aspect of this case makes it different from a search of a residence or a car.  The police had probable cause from the breathalyzer test.

What if they found someone passed out behind the wheel of a running car?

Or someone unconscious after an accident?

I mean, if the blood test is limited in scope and they cant go poking around for other information, I don’t think this is an undue burden on people who are so passed out that they can’t revoke consent. 

I would have thought this was a fair trade. In return for using public roads, you agree not to kill anyone by driving drunk. 

There was already reasonable cause from the initial breathalyzer results and the guy’s behavior.

There has to be a way to definitively check for alcohol intoxication otherwise every drunk out there will just fake unconsciousness until they sober up.

If a person has to give consent for blood to be taken. If someone collapses in the Street and is Unconscious and taken to Hospital do the doctors/nurses not run tests to find out why they collapsed until they ave woken so they can give consent.

Eggs come out of a cloaca. The unfertilized eggs that you get from a grocery store are, essentially, the result of the chicken equivalent of menstruation.

“Tyson has taken the phrase ‘plant-based’—which means ‘contains only plants’—and co-opted it to mean ‘contains plants.’”

Actually, as long as they keep the rooster out.. eggs are just eggs.   My wife had a duck for a while (don’t ask, I can’t figure it out).  She would lay eggs and defend them and sit on them all the time.   And then after a while, she would figure out that since there wasn’t a Drake around, they were not going to…

As a carbon-based lifeform, are you willing to remove all other elements from your body in order to stay consistent with your “-based” definition?

You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.

Right but if it’s based on plants rather than non plants calling it ‘plant based’ is correct. If I put some hard boiled egg slices on my otherwise veggie filled salad, my salad is plant based.

Eggs aren’t plants, so no.

Eggs are a good source of protein for those who need to add it to their diet but still don’t want to kill anything to do it. Plenty of vegetarians eat eggs.

If it’s called a ‘plant based’ food then sure, it can have eggs...as long as it’s based on plants and the eggs are merely additions then it’s ‘plant based’.

I wanna be pedantic about this so “plant-based” could mean that the base of the food is made/derived from plants, but it can have other minor add-ons. So the fries or a veggie patty fried in beef tallow could technically be plant-based.