5 ms·

Requiring police to wear and use body cameras is judicial activism to achieve...?

SilverElfin 11mo ago
They aren’t police. They’re federal agents. Where in the law, specifically, are they required to wear body cameras? What’s the legal argument, apart from the judge arbitrarily deciding this, for them to wear body cameras?
- bigyabai 11mo ago
  > They’re federal agents It's a federal judge. If those agents don't want to listen, then they don't deserve the honor of serving America's people.
  - SilverElfin 11mo ago
    Again, what law is there that is applicable to federal agents and requires body cameras? Be specific. A federal judge doesn’t make laws. They interpret and apply existing laws.
    - mynameisash 11mo ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law
    - bigyabai 11mo ago
      They're federal agents, not presidential mercenaries. When you work for the federal government, you must obey checks-and-balances even if you don't agree with the politics. We have a whole Watergate scandal to prove it. Washington D.C. is an at-will employment state. If they feel violated because their job requires a bodycam, they can take their vast litany of talents to any private enterprise that's willing to pay for their retinue. Nobody should go to jail because they don't want to wear a bodycam, after all.
- estearum 11mo ago
  Judges can order all sorts of things they deem are reasonably necessary to enforce their rulings or the law. Injunctive relief can take a huge variety of things so long as it's narrow and directly applicable to the case before them. You'd be hard pressed to find "wear bodycameras" to be an out of scope form of relief for a case about police brutality, dishonesty in court, and lack of accountability. You clearly haven't spent much time around courtrooms if you think judges can only create orders that are "follow the law as already written." It's an obviously silly idea when you actually write it out.
  - SilverElfin 11mo ago
    > You clearly haven't spent much time around courtrooms if you think judges can only create orders that are "follow the law as already written." It's an obviously silly idea when you actually write it out. So just to be clear you’re both advocating for judges to act outside the law when they issue orders, and are simultaneously claiming this isn’t judicial activism?
    - estearum 11mo ago
      There should be an internet law for “Just to be clear you’re saying… <inject OP’s own bad faith interpretation>” No, I’m saying that you fundamentally misunderstand the role of courts, judges, and judicial orders. The law says “follow the law as written.” Judicial orders necessarily encompass a much, much broader set of types of relief that give courts more levers to compel people to follow the law and to ensure that they actually do it. This is just how courts work and it always has been. This literally predates the United States by hundreds of years. Assuming there’s some good faith curiosity behind the curtain here, the concept you want to look up is “equity jurisdiction.”

They aren’t police. They’re federal agents. Where in the law, specifically, are they required to wear body cameras? What’s the legal argument, apart from the judge arbitrarily deciding this, for them to wear body cameras?

bigyabai 11mo ago
> They’re federal agents It's a federal judge. If those agents don't want to listen, then they don't deserve the honor of serving America's people.
- SilverElfin 11mo ago
  Again, what law is there that is applicable to federal agents and requires body cameras? Be specific. A federal judge doesn’t make laws. They interpret and apply existing laws.
  - mynameisash 11mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law
  - bigyabai 11mo ago
    They're federal agents, not presidential mercenaries. When you work for the federal government, you must obey checks-and-balances even if you don't agree with the politics. We have a whole Watergate scandal to prove it. Washington D.C. is an at-will employment state. If they feel violated because their job requires a bodycam, they can take their vast litany of talents to any private enterprise that's willing to pay for their retinue. Nobody should go to jail because they don't want to wear a bodycam, after all.
estearum 11mo ago
Judges can order all sorts of things they deem are reasonably necessary to enforce their rulings or the law. Injunctive relief can take a huge variety of things so long as it's narrow and directly applicable to the case before them. You'd be hard pressed to find "wear bodycameras" to be an out of scope form of relief for a case about police brutality, dishonesty in court, and lack of accountability. You clearly haven't spent much time around courtrooms if you think judges can only create orders that are "follow the law as already written." It's an obviously silly idea when you actually write it out.
- SilverElfin 11mo ago
  > You clearly haven't spent much time around courtrooms if you think judges can only create orders that are "follow the law as already written." It's an obviously silly idea when you actually write it out. So just to be clear you’re both advocating for judges to act outside the law when they issue orders, and are simultaneously claiming this isn’t judicial activism?
  - estearum 11mo ago
    There should be an internet law for “Just to be clear you’re saying… <inject OP’s own bad faith interpretation>” No, I’m saying that you fundamentally misunderstand the role of courts, judges, and judicial orders. The law says “follow the law as written.” Judicial orders necessarily encompass a much, much broader set of types of relief that give courts more levers to compel people to follow the law and to ensure that they actually do it. This is just how courts work and it always has been. This literally predates the United States by hundreds of years. Assuming there’s some good faith curiosity behind the curtain here, the concept you want to look up is “equity jurisdiction.”