The Democrat Thread

[iamshack]

Elsewhere it was highlighted that Kennedy made this odd reference in the opinion:

 

 

 

Can anyone explain why this helps bolster the case?

He's making the point that people arrested for "minor offenses" have the capacity to be just as dangerous as those arrested for more serious offenses, and therefore shouldn't be excluded from the general prison population or from strip searches by default just because they were indeed arrested for "minor offenses."

[StrangeSox]

He's making the point that people arrested for "minor offenses" have the capacity to be just as dangerous as those arrested for more serious offenses, and therefore shouldn't be excluded from the general prison population or from strip searches by default just because they were indeed arrested for "minor offenses."

 

But such a search would not have resulted in anything. It seems like a base appeal to "9/11!" to me.

[StrangeSox]

The majority opinion gives us a case that shows you don't have to go way over the top with hypotheticals to come up with some pretty absurd cases of people being arrested for minor offenses:

 

Persons arrested for minor offenses may be among thedetainees processed at these facilities. This is, in part, a consequence of the exercise of state authority that was thesubject of Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U. S. 318 (2001). Atwater addressed the perhaps more fundamental question of who may be deprived of liberty and taken to jail in the first place. The case involved a woman who was arrested after a police officer noticed neither she nor her children were wearing their seatbelts. The arrestee argued the Fourth Amendment prohibited her custodial arrest without a warrant when an offense could not result in jail time and there was no compelling need for immediate detention. Id., at 346. The Court held that a Fourth Amendment restriction on this power would put officers in an “almost impossible spot.” Id., at 350. Their ability to arrest a suspect would depend in some cases on the precise weight of drugs in his pocket, whether he was a repeat offender, and the scope of what counted as a compelling need to detain someone. Id., at

 

So you could be arrested for not seatbelting your children and then subjected to a strip search, depending on which jurisdiction you were in. I suppose the best remedy now are State laws barring these policies.

[Balta1701]

But such a search would not have resulted in anything. It seems like a base appeal to "9/11!" to me.

Basically, we need to assume everyone is a terrorist and strip-search everyone.

[StrangeSox]

Basically, we need to assume everyone is a terrorist and strip-search everyone.

 

Que video of TSA patting down a 3 year old in a wheel chair at O'Hare.

 

But unless he had the plans for 9/11 up his ass, the search wouldn't have mattered.

Edited April 3, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Que video of TSA patting down a 3 year old in a wheel chair at O'Hare.

 

But unless he had the plans for 9/11 up his ass, the search wouldn't have mattered.

You'll never know unless you search every ass. Constantly. Not just traffic stops, I mean every time anyone goes outdoors.

[StrangeSox]

I have to say I at least appreciate both Roberts' and Alito's concurrences for explicitly stating the limited nature of the ruling. Reading the majority opinion leaves a different impression.

[StrangeSox]

I couldn't tell you this. But it matters. It's like when a superior asks me to do something that really doesn't need to be done...but they want it done anyway...only to a different degree, since they're working for the government. They're working under a lot of rules you and I are do not...and I do not know all of these rules, or the reasons for these rules.

 

Roberts and Alito both note this as well, as does Breyer. Alito is reserving judgement on a case of someone arrested for a misdemeanor such as jaywalking and not a warrant related to a misdemeanor.

[Soxbadger]

This is what Ive been trying to explain:

 

before this Court Florence challenged suspicionless strip searches “no matter what the circumstances.” Pet. for Cert. i.

 

This is why the whole idea that it was summary judgment etc was important. Because the Supreme Court was not ruling that about these facts, they were ruling about whether any set of facts can exist.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I understand that now, but I still agree with the dissent and that Florence's challenge as stated should have been upheld.

[Soxbadger]

In close cases there usually isnt a right side or a wrong side, there are just different opinions as to what is the best policy.

[Balta1701]

In close cases there usually isnt a right side or a wrong side, there are just different opinions as to what is the best policy.

That might have been the standard when a 5-4 decision didn't mean "Democrats on one side, Republicans on the other". A 5-4 decision used to mean a lot more about the law being in dispute. Now it means a lot more about politics.

[Soxbadger]

That may be true, but too many people just think a 5-4 decision has to be political.

 

In cases like this, it is always likely that it is going to come down on the political spectrum. Conservatives are generally pro-govt anti-criminal rights, liberals are generally anti-govt pro-criminal.

 

These arent the unusual cases where you get a states right judge giving federal power at the expense of the state. That is when its clearly political, this one was much murkier.

 

The risk is that if you complain about every 5-4 decision, it takes away from the actual bad 5-4 decisions. Sometimes a 5-4 decision, should have been that way, sometimes not.

 

 

[Balta1701]

A worthy read. "A Teen’s Brave Response to “I’m Christian, Unless You’re Gay”"

[StrangeSox]

A worthy read. "A Teen’s Brave Response to “I’m Christian, Unless You’re Gay”"

 

You should tag that as NSFW, I started to tear up.

 

I'm ever grateful that my parents, who both tend to be conservative politically and were church-going Christians for my whole childhood (though it was a pretty moderate, bland version of Lutheranism from what I recall), never even had a hint of an issue with my brother's sexuality.

[Balta1701]

You should tag that as NSFW, I started to tear up.

Sorry, I typically save that tag for things that are, you know, profane.

[Jenksismyhero]

That might have been the standard when a 5-4 decision didn't mean "Democrats on one side, Republicans on the other". A 5-4 decision used to mean a lot more about the law being in dispute. Now it means a lot more about politics.

 

Balta -

 

I really urge you to go read some history books about the Court. You've made this point repeatedly that the Court is somehow just NOW becoming a political unit. That's just not true. It's been political basically since the beginning.

[Balta1701]

Balta -

 

I really urge you to go read some history books about the Court. You've made this point repeatedly that the Court is somehow just NOW becoming a political unit. That's just not true. It's been political basically since the beginning.

But was it a political unit specifically aligned with the parties, to the point where you could predict every key vote based on which President appointed a justice?

[Jenksismyhero]

But was it a political unit specifically aligned with the parties, to the point where you could predict every key vote based on which President appointed a justice?

 

I can't say with certainty when it was a 5-4 split court like this, but yes, you could very easily predict opinions based on some kind of political leanings, normally geographic in nature to start. As I said before, during FDR's terms he wanted to amend the Constitution because the Court kept rejecting a lot of his policies and he knew they'd continue to do that.

 

I don't see why this is so surprising. The President nominates a justice. What President is going to nominate someone with different political beliefs?

[Balta1701]

I can't say with certainty when it was a 5-4 split court like this, but yes, you could very easily predict opinions based on some kind of political leanings, normally geographic in nature to start. As I said before, during FDR's terms he wanted to amend the Constitution because the Court kept rejecting a lot of his policies and he knew they'd continue to do that.

 

I don't see why this is so surprising. The President nominates a justice. What President is going to nominate someone with different political beliefs?

Apparently a lot of them, since you yourself just said that a lot of votes were predicted "Geographically".

[Jenksismyhero]

Apparently a lot of them, since you yourself just said that a lot of votes were predicted "Geographically".

 

Because geography often dictates political views, especially in the past, less so now.

 

Has the Court gotten more attention for "political decisions?" Yes. Is this some new trend that justices have tendencies to rule the same as their political beliefs? No.

[StrangeSox]

Because geography often dictates political views, especially in the past, less so now.

 

Has the Court gotten more attention for "political decisions?" Yes. Is this some new trend that justices have tendencies to rule the same as their political beliefs? No.

 

It does seem to be somewhat cyclical, but you're absolutely right that the court has been highly political in the past.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'll add too that in the vast majority of cases (like 75-80%) the court doesn't have that 5-4 split. They're normally unanimous decisions. I think people assume that more coverage=happening all the time.

[iamshack]

Of course that fact is not going to be openly celebrated...we'd all like to think that the highest court is composed of only the most objective collection of wise individuals possible...

 

Of course, as Jenks said, FDR tried to add two Justices (and thus amend the Constitution) just so he could get a Democratic majority back in the Court....

[Balta1701]

I'll add too that in the vast majority of cases (like 75-80%) the court doesn't have that 5-4 split. They're normally unanimous decisions. I think people assume that more coverage=happening all the time.

Link