5 ms·

> With the current US Court System, I expect this will be allowed if this raid ever gets to the Supreme Court. What do you mean?

kevmo 3y ago
They mean that the Supreme Court is a fascist institution that will always side with the police. I passed 3 bar exams -- my default rule of thumb for the multiple-choice questions was that the Supreme Court would always side against the little guy when law enforcement was involved.
- Clubber 3y ago
  >the Supreme Court would always side against the little guy when law enforcement was involved. That's not accurate. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-564 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-564 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-bruen/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-r...
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Maybe always being the word getting your research gears engaged. What does the reverse look like where the cases were ruled in favor of law enforcement? If the 4 examples pale to the new number, I'd be willing to say always myself
    - Clubber 3y ago
      >Maybe always being the word getting your research gears engaged. Yes, but I've been following legal decisions since it was obvious there were severe issues with many local jurisdictions. The current SCOTUS seems to be pretty strong regarding rights lately, Roe being the exception. >What does the reverse look like where the cases were ruled in favor of law enforcement? I dunno, maybe point out some recent decisions you don't like, lets discuss them.
      - check89 3y ago
        > Roe being the exception. What do you mean?
    - jcranmer 3y ago
      Scrolling through the decisions since Ginsburg was replaced with Barret, the cases that dealt with police have gone as follows: * Lange v. California (police in hot pursuit of a suspect conduct warrantless entry) 9-0 in favor of the suspect * United States v. Cooley 9-0 that tribal officers can stop non-natives on tribal land. Technically pro-police, but this really isn't so much a police issue as tribal sovereignty issue. * Taylor v. Riojas 7-1 correctional officers did not in fact hold qualified immunity In general, recent SCOTUS decisions have generally tended to land in favor of criminal defendants with regards to 4th Amendment violations. However, where SCOTUS has tended to land strongly against criminal defendants is in regards to post-conviction reconsideration, e.g. something like https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/court-blocks-pathway-for-federal-prisoners-to-raise-legal-innocence-claims/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/court-blocks-pathway-for-....
- check89 3y ago
  > the Supreme Court is a fascist institution > that will always side with the police Both claims are false.
r00fus 3y ago
The current USSC is very politicized and wanting to enact their form of justice that departs strongly with jurisprudence as it has been understood for decades. In short they want to legislate from the bench.
- ImJamal 3y ago
  What do you mean departing from jurisprudence? Are you saying that overturning precedent is a departure from jurisprudence? If that is the case, then you would be incorrect that it is a departure that has been understood for decades. Here is a list: https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/ https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overru...
- check89 3y ago
  > The current USSC is very politicized How so? > departs strongly with jurisprudence as it has been understood for decades How so? > they want to legislate from the bench How so?
  - pbjtime 3y ago
    If you don't understand how the current court has decided to relitigate multiple previously long-held decisions, you need to do some homework and come back.
    - check89 3y ago
      As expected, you (and the GP) don't have any answers. You're just bloviating because you're leftists.

kevmo 3y ago

They mean that the Supreme Court is a fascist institution that will always side with the police. I passed 3 bar exams -- my default rule of thumb for the multiple-choice questions was that the Supreme Court would always side against the little guy when law enforcement was involved.

Clubber 3y ago
>the Supreme Court would always side against the little guy when law enforcement was involved. That's not accurate. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-564 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-564 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-bruen/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-r...
- dylan604 3y ago
  Maybe always being the word getting your research gears engaged. What does the reverse look like where the cases were ruled in favor of law enforcement? If the 4 examples pale to the new number, I'd be willing to say always myself
  - Clubber 3y ago
    >Maybe always being the word getting your research gears engaged. Yes, but I've been following legal decisions since it was obvious there were severe issues with many local jurisdictions. The current SCOTUS seems to be pretty strong regarding rights lately, Roe being the exception. >What does the reverse look like where the cases were ruled in favor of law enforcement? I dunno, maybe point out some recent decisions you don't like, lets discuss them.
    - check89 3y ago
      > Roe being the exception. What do you mean?
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    Scrolling through the decisions since Ginsburg was replaced with Barret, the cases that dealt with police have gone as follows: * Lange v. California (police in hot pursuit of a suspect conduct warrantless entry) 9-0 in favor of the suspect * United States v. Cooley 9-0 that tribal officers can stop non-natives on tribal land. Technically pro-police, but this really isn't so much a police issue as tribal sovereignty issue. * Taylor v. Riojas 7-1 correctional officers did not in fact hold qualified immunity In general, recent SCOTUS decisions have generally tended to land in favor of criminal defendants with regards to 4th Amendment violations. However, where SCOTUS has tended to land strongly against criminal defendants is in regards to post-conviction reconsideration, e.g. something like https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/court-blocks-pathway-for-federal-prisoners-to-raise-legal-innocence-claims/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/court-blocks-pathway-for-....
check89 3y ago
> the Supreme Court is a fascist institution > that will always side with the police Both claims are false.

r00fus 3y ago

The current USSC is very politicized and wanting to enact their form of justice that departs strongly with jurisprudence as it has been understood for decades. In short they want to legislate from the bench.

ImJamal 3y ago
What do you mean departing from jurisprudence? Are you saying that overturning precedent is a departure from jurisprudence? If that is the case, then you would be incorrect that it is a departure that has been understood for decades. Here is a list: https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/ https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overru...
check89 3y ago
> The current USSC is very politicized How so? > departs strongly with jurisprudence as it has been understood for decades How so? > they want to legislate from the bench How so?
- pbjtime 3y ago
  If you don't understand how the current court has decided to relitigate multiple previously long-held decisions, you need to do some homework and come back.
  - check89 3y ago
    As expected, you (and the GP) don't have any answers. You're just bloviating because you're leftists.