General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHoly Crap. SCOTUS hammered the 4th Amendment (Well last year anyway).
Last edited Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/supreme-court-rules-cops-warrant-search-home/#tLbdkQEh0ihSx6g4.99In another devastating blow to freedom, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police dont need a warrant to search your property. As long as two occupants disagree about allowing officers to enter, and the resident who refuses access is then arrested, police may enter the residence.
Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement, Ginsburg wrote, todays decision tells the police they may dodge it, nevermind ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate. Tuesdays ruling, she added, shrinks to petite size our holding in Georgia v. Randolph.
The majority, led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said police need not take the time to get a magistrates approval before entering a home in such cases. But dissenters, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, warned that the decision would erode protections against warrantless home searches. The court had previously held that such protections were at the very core of the 4th Amendment and its ban on unreasonable searches and seizures, reports the LA Times.
The implications for such a Stasi-esque interpretation of the 4th Amendment are staggering. This can and will open the door to even more unscrupulous police behavior. They will only need to say that someone may be in danger, and now they are justified in ransacking your home.
But the 2nd amendment is sacred.....
Sorry folks, This is from last year....I hadn't heard about it, so I thought it was new. I didn't pay attention to the date!
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)Historic NY
(37,449 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)I missed this news last week!
I guarantee that if this was a second amendment case it would still be all over the M$M.
The rest of them, not news.....
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)Xyzse
(8,217 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)one of the reasons we fought the Revolutionary War back into the law.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226-story.html#ixzz2uRK5qT00
Once again...how important is it to vote for a strong Democratic candidate who can actually win as opposed to sitting home making waffles when we don't get the Democrat of our preference and by default allow a Republican to win?
Remember...the next president will determine the make-up of our SCOTUS in the next decade. We can't afford to have even more of our rights eroded by Republican justices!
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Once again...how important is it to vote for a strong Democratic candidate who can actually win as opposed to sitting home making waffles when we don't get the Democrat of our preference and by default allow a Republican to win?
What candidate are you speaking of, or are you speaking theoretically?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)Huh?
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Or voting third party and letting Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz pick another Justice
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Lets work to get the best possible candidate through the primaries, then unite to support that candidate in the general election
2naSalit
(86,054 posts)in general overall turnout of the voting public who will sit out an election because they are upset that their candidate isn't on the ballot and, by default, allow a really bad choice to win and cause us this type of woe.
I think that voting should be mandatory for all eligible persons.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)And I'm certain blackspade knows it.
2naSalit
(86,054 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)CANDO
(2,068 posts)Not so much directing this at you, but I'm noticing an incorrect meme being created. Low turnout, midterm election losses(for the Ds) of the past few election cycles have not been because anyone's preferred candidate wasn't on the ballot and then they therefore refused to vote. By and large, the Democratic base always turns out. The people not turning out for the midterms are the people who are not considered the base voters. These are the people who usually vote Democratic when they do care to vote, which is during Presidential years. So this argument that it's about someone sitting at home because they're butt hurt just doesn't ring true. I know this sort of idea gets created during the very heated primary fights with people emotionally throwing it out that they're not going to vote if "ABC" is the nominee over "DEF". It just hasn't played out like that.
2naSalit
(86,054 posts)that the point made is actually the case either but it is what the post was describing. I know it's a meme that Ds didn't turn out but I don't buy the whole concept when I know that elections are stolen where gerrymandering isn't guaranteed to take the winning position.
I think that it is more an issue of election rigging that too many have accepted as "the way it is" and forget that this is a problem that still requires remedy. I vote in every election regardless of whether it's about a school board or a general election, I always vote.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)That means elections are decided by the other half which is split about half and half so that means only about a quarter of the population decides for everyone else.
That's how you get a fake Texas cowboy who's afraid of horses and is actually from Maine and who's dumber than a bag of rocks in office.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)they are the plurality and the ones that decide elections. To get them to vote for a candidate they must have a better reason than a D or an R after a name. A Republican and a wanna-be Republican is not a choice. I know, I'm one of the 43% and will no longer vote for the lesser of two evils. Democrats need to give me a reason to vote for them, and holding the Supreme Court over my head won't work anymore.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There are an enormous number of "unaffiliated" voters that always vote for Republicans.
There is a smaller number of "unaffiliated" voters that always vote for Democrats.
There is a much, much, much, much smaller number of voters who will actually swing between parties.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)calling themselves liberals when obviously the are not.
Because we know a true liberal would never want that to happen.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)Which is rule by all of the people not just a few.
But what makes people not vote, and I know lots of them, is when they feel they have two choices and they can see no change in their world for the better, but lots for the worst.
And they conclude from that that there is no difference in the D and the R. and they just don't vote...which should be counted as a no confidence vote.
But this can be exploited and it is...TPTB like low turnout and close elections...it is easer to steel if if they need to and people love a horse race with lots of emotional cheering on both sides...you know, the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.
Sometime ago somewhere I made the suggestion of an anti-poll tax, where you were taxed if you did not show up at the polls...it got laughed at.
there are always naysayers when a good idea is presented. I know a whole bunch of folks who just can't be bothered to pay attention to politics but have endless complaints about the political results of elections whether valid or not. they love to complain about the results of bad policies yet say that they just don't have the time or interest in politics and never register to vote. Some clim it's due to lack of efficacy, which it's hard to argue with at times.
Apathy is what has helped push us to this cliff at the edge of an abyss.
Australia has compulsory voting and I think it should be practiced here. There is no real utopian dream come true in politics due to human nature... I find it ironic that many social constructions are designed to combat the affects of human nature but end up exploiting some of its worst traits instead.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And the founding fathers knew what the risks were, that there would always be people who would exploit every thing they could including the vote.
But it seems like we don't even notice it anymore, and some tune it out and others just give up.
We have become comfortably numb.
2naSalit
(86,054 posts)Can't argue against that.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)president who'll appoint the next three justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)So who is this strong candidate?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)especially the part about waffles.
Sid
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)want change. In 2008 they voted for the promise of change. Nominate a progressive candidate and people will vote. Nominate two candidates supported by the Oligarchy and you'll get what you get.
WDIM
(1,662 posts)At a time we need to be reining in the police state scotus gives them more power to intrude in citizens lives. Looks like the police state is here to stay.
earthside
(6,960 posts)They may opine in favor of small government, but they want the government that is to be authoritarian.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Should the boyfriend be able to prevent the police from coming in by yelling that he does not consent?
tridim
(45,358 posts)It's damn important.
Maraya1969
(22,441 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)...but this doesn't seem sinister in itself. Seems to be limited specifically to the sort of incident when someone has already been arrested?
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)If the police see evidence of a crime in plain sight, they can come in regardless of whether anyone consents or not.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226-story.html#ixzz2uRK5qT00
Thinking about this, I do wonder why they did not rule that the entry was OK based on the fact that this appeared to be an emergency situation.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)They arrested Fernandez on suspicion of domestic violence, and even the dissent had no issues with that. The question before the court was whether they could subsequently conduct a warrantless search the premises for illegal contraband if one of the residents objects.
This is from the Ginsburg dissent:
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Wait! ... Those are the facts of the case!
world wide wally
(21,719 posts)ISIS is more like a mosquito in comparison.
sarisataka
(18,216 posts)Cops jobs:
PD "May we search the house?"
Occupant A "No"
Occupant B "Yes"
PD to occupant A "You are under arrest for interfering with an investigation"
How long before both saying no will police just be allowed to arrest them and search anyway?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)because with both Occupants under arrest, there is no one left to consent to the search!
blackspade
(10,056 posts)According to the AP, Justice Samuel Alito wrote the courts 6-3 decision holding that an occupant may not object to a search when he is not at home.
We therefore hold that an occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason, Alito said.
That is the slippery slope we are on.....
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Also completely disrespectful of the person who wants to cook meth in the kitchen, even if someone else in the house
wants to cook dinner for the kids instead.
Man, what kind of world is this when one person can't do evil things without some busybody in the house letting the fucking cops in?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)That pesky ole Constitution.
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)It is just unbelievable what the SC has done to this country with their decisions in the past several years.
The ACA is next. I am one of the 11M on the ACA. And there is no backup plan, if it is defeated. Me and my wife will both be uninsured, if that happens. What ever happened to moving forward? That's how people and economies prosper. Nope, not today.
I just can't believe the crap coming out of the SC.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)... and the rest...
Rex
(65,616 posts)Yikes!
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Myrina
(12,296 posts)The only thing that would piss the freeps off more would be "Chief Justice William Jefferson Clinton".
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Takket
(21,424 posts)There is no need for this. Even in the domestic abuse situation named the police don't need to enter the home to help the woman. The police knock on the door, the cops ask to come in.... man says no, woman says yes, then the woman just has to step outside with the cops. With her under their watch the cops can then just make the call to get a warrant to go in.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Protect the real criminals (Wall Street fraudsters, war profiteers, torturers) but allow extra constitutional policing of the lower economic classes.
This is precisely contrary to what the founders wanted.
It would allow a politically dissenting minority to be persecuted by an authoritarian government.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)there are people willing to give up their freedom for a promise of security.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)"Holy Crap. SCOTUS just hammered the 4th Amendment."
Really? Friggin' seven months a go, and it just happened?
Whatever. I'd bet a nickel this is a 'bot poster.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)And it was more like 12 months ago as I corrected in the OP....
And what is hysterical about another serious blow to the 4th amendment?
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)eom
PatrickforO
(14,516 posts)Myrina
(12,296 posts)When are their knuckleheaded voters going to wake up & admit what they've unleashed on this country?
OMFG...
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)Holy shit
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)Here is the DU thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562256
blackspade
(10,056 posts)By the number of recs I would say that I wasn't the only one who missed this bit of news.....
libodem
(19,288 posts)To protect ourselves from the police more than criminals. I hate this.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Pretty words that mean less than nothing when you try and realize them.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,154 posts)Even as they scream about the Democrats having plans to enact laws to be able to kick down their doors without warrants to steal their guns. Meanwhile their favorite party's SCOTUS is paving the way for exactly that possibility.
red dog 1
(27,648 posts)I'm surprised that Justice Breyer voted with the right-wingers on this one.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)[center]ACLU - WASHINGTON LEGISLATIVE OFFICE
915 15th St, NW Washington, DC 20005
Customs and Border Protections (CBPs) 100-Mile Rule
For more information, contact Chris Rickerd, (202) 675-2339, crickerd@aclu.org
Background[/center]
8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3) addresses CBP officials authority to stop and conduct searches on vessels, trains, aircraft, or other vehicles anywhere within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States. Without further statutory guidance, regulations alone expansively define this reasonable distance as 100 air miles from any external boundary of the U.S., including coastal boundaries, unless an agency official sets a shorter distance. CBP agents can also even enter private property without a warrant (excepting dwellings) within 25 miles of any border.
In this 100-mile zone, CBP has claimed certain extra-constitutional powers. For instance, Border Patrol claims the authority to operate immigration checkpoints. Agents, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (more than just a "hunch" . Similarly, courts have determined that outside of Ports of Entry Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has occurred). In practice, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority, violating the constitutional rights of innocent people. Although the 100-mile border zone is not literally "Constitution-free," CBP frequently acts like it is.
As a result, two-thirds of the U.S. population, or approximately 200 million people, are potentially subject to so-called investigatory detention and warrantless search by CBP agents. (Most of the ten largest U.S. cities are within 100 air miles of the boundary, and several states lie entirely within this area, including Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.)
These policies originated in a statutory change to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) passed in 19463, and a federal regulation interpreting that change issued in 1953 in both instances with little deliberation or review.
K&R
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments for a certain class of people. It was only a matter of time until they started drawing back the rights for the rest of us.
turbinetree
(24,632 posts)Why aren't these five so called justices not IMPEACHED.
Why have a CONSTITUTION to serve and protect the citizens, when these five activist judges go to parties in Aspen and Palm Springs with there buddies, or take $800,000 from two brothers to start a political pac, or get gifts from bended knees
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)It will happen, sooner than later.
Wella
(1,827 posts)And it eviscerates the 4th amendment.
Madmiddle
(459 posts)This is another step toward something worse coming at us all like a freight train.