Legal/scotus thread

striker42 said:
It's a catchall for any behavior the cop doesn't like.
Click to expand...

This. When we give cops vague powers like this we dont just give them the power to arrest people who break the law, but also people who get anywhere close to breaking that law who are/will be found innocent. A lot of times its just a power move by a cop to force someone total submission on a person and if you dont the cops gets to beat your ass and charge you with resisting or assaulting him. One of my other favorite catch alls is "interfereing with a police officer/interfering with an investigation"
 
cajunrevenge said:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ules-against-civil-forfeitures-rbg-timbs.html



The supreme court ruled 9-0 that the Bill of Rights applies to the states as well as the federal government. Huge ruling here.




"Here we are in 2018 still arguing incorporating the Bill of Rights."



Justice Neil Gorsuch




This case is about civil asset forfeiture otherwise known as legal armed robbery.
Click to expand...

Came here to post this. Would have thought sturg would have jumped on it immediately but should have known better that you would be first in line.

Win win for every American here.
 
The incorporation of the 8th amendment's prohibition on excessive fines has been a pet legal issue of mine. I've been waiting for this to happen.

That being said, the legal theory behind incorporation of bogus. I think it's a fantastic policy and would strongly favor a constitutional amendment incorporating the bill of rights. I'm not even upset that it's been sone. However, the reasoning behind why it applies to the states is weak.
 
Individual-1 said:
Came here to post this. Would have thought sturg would have jumped on it immediately but should have known better that you would be first in line.

Win win for every American here.
Click to expand...

My hometown newspaper just did a multipart series on civil asset forfeiture here in SC. It’s mind-boggling.

I’m going to plug it here because I’m proud of the work of the local journalists involved, and I think each part is worth reading.
 
Julio3000 said:
My hometown newspaper just did a multipart series on civil asset forfeiture here in SC. It’s mind-boggling.

I’m going to plug it here because I’m proud of the work of the local journalists involved, and I think each part is worth reading.
Click to expand...

Civil asset forfiture is one of the most abused policies in the history of the country. So much of the time it's straight up theft.
 
Its the natural result of our worship of law enforcement as a society. We kept bending over backwards to give them everything they said they need to keep us safe and they turned around and used it to **** us in the ass with it. Its all fun and games until you or someone you love is the victim. Leave your prescription medicine in your car ad your wife takes it to the store and gets pulled over. Cop wants to search. No problem, got nothing to hide. Cop finds the prescription pill bottle and looks at the name. Oh thats your husbands not yours..... well your vehicle belongs to me now. Fight it and we can do this the hard way and I can arrest you for felony drug trafficking.








Keep telling yourselves they are the good guys. Yall know what that is when those cops raid that business. .Nothing justifies that. I dont give a damn what any law or judge says. Literally robbing kids and little old ladies.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...on-founder-cleared-over-kings-college-protest



2 British men successfully used the "necessity" defense citing climate change as a legal excuse to spray paint the walls of their college to encourage them to divest from oil and gas. The judge continuously told the jury to disregard the defense but the jury ignored him and deliberated for the minimum amount of time required. I am a BIG fan of jury nullification. No matter what any judge tells you, you have the right to judge the moral application of the law. Despite having a legal precedent dating back to our founding fathers, no judge will allow you to argue it in court. To me, if you cant defend the law and provide a reasonable justification for the public's interest in prosecuting the person then it is not a just system.
 
With the looming rehashing of abortion I want to encourage everyone to spread the word of jury nullification. You have the right to judge the morality of the law and as well as its application. It has a legal precedent going back hundreds of years and has been used tens of thousands of times in American history. The Bundy trial is the most recent high profile case where the jury refused to participate in a kangaroo court but Jury Nullification is currently widely used in legal marijuana states to combat the absurdity of treating driving on marijuana and alcohol as equivalent.
 
cajunrevenge said:
With the looming rehashing of abortion I want to encourage everyone to spread the word of jury nullification. You have the right to judge the morality of the law and as well as its application. It has a legal precedent going back hundreds of years and has been used tens of thousands of times in American history. The Bundy trial is the most recent high profile case where the jury refused to participate in a kangaroo court but Jury Nullification is currently widely used in legal marijuana states to combat the absurdity of treating driving on marijuana and alcohol as equivalent.
Click to expand...

I live in Georgia and it would be a cold day in hell before I’d vote to convict anyone of having or performing an abortion unless it was performed with gross negligence or non-consentually. I couldn’t care less what laws the dumb rednecks who run our state pass or what the stolen Supreme Court might decide is legal. Honestly I’ve always tried to have some respect for others’ viewpoints. In the Republican Party I do for business establishment and moderate fiscal conservatives. However the small town folks with their guns and religion can go to hell as far as I’m concerned. Living in the south I’m tired of them just as tired of the uneducated Trump populists. Factions of the Republican Party used to have an important role to play but they’re being crowded out by morons.
 
Sorry that was a bit of a rant. Usually not a drinker but heck I’m in Granada Spain and I’ve had a few. Strangely I’ve had three people out of the blue ask me what is going on with some decisions being made in the U.S. so in short if I think a law is unconscionably stupid nullification isn’t just a right it’s a responsibility.
 
I want to clarify my position on abortion. I think its abhorrent and sick. I just believe we should not criminalize something without a significant majority of people being in favor of it. We can argue what that arbitrary percent should be but the lower the percent the less I am in favor of it. If it's a minority imposing its will on the majority then I am vehemently opposed. The greater divide between public opinion and the laws creates significant harm to society as a whole. This is especially true with abortion because we already know the outcome. We have lived it. Abortions will still happen. We will just be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Best case scenario would be extremely loose enforcement. If we as a society get to say 75% or higher in favor of abortion ban then in theory there will be significantly less people willing to break the law thus creating less societal harm that our criminal justice system will do. It won't just be the guilty going to prison. Fall and have a miscarriage. Sounds suspicious to me. My best friends wife had a miscarriage. Any jackals doctor could call the cops and say he is suspicious and now they might have to face trial. Like that won't be arbitrarily enforced and give self righteous jackassed far too much power to use the law to punish people they dont like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top