stusi
|
posted on April 24, 2001 10:48:10 AM new
MSNBC has reported that the Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that "police have the power to make arrests and put people in jail for misdemeanors that are punishable only by a fine and not jail time". "Such an arrest does not violate the Constitution's fourth amendment protection against unreasonable seizures." This was decided in a case of a mother who was arrested for not wearing a seatbelt and taken from her children in handcuffs to jail. Is this only the beginning of compassionate conservatism?
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on April 24, 2001 10:57:01 AM new
This wasn't a partisan vote.
|
stusi
|
posted on April 24, 2001 11:37:04 AM new
All those in the majority were appointed by Republican Presidents. Is that not partisan?
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on April 24, 2001 11:40:52 AM new
Not true. O'Connor was a dissenter.
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on April 24, 2001 11:42:09 AM new
Actually, 7 out of 9 were appointed by Republicans. Which means that the usual 5-4 partisan split actually includes 2 Republican appointees. That says, to me, that at least some of the Supreme Court judges attempt to vote based upon the law and not on their personal politics.
In this case, O'Connor and Breyer are both Republican appointees and both of them voted against this.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Apr 24, 2001 11:49 AM ]
|
stusi
|
posted on April 24, 2001 11:56:19 AM new
james- i think you are missing the point. the fact that a Republican appointee dissented may technically or semantically mean that the vote was not 100% partisan. But to me when the majority is all of one political persuasion it is a partisan vote. had Breyer or Ginsburg voted for the majority, to me it would not have been partisan. P.S.- wasn't Breyer appointed by Clinton?
[ edited by stusi on Apr 24, 2001 11:59 AM ]
|
julesY
|
posted on April 24, 2001 12:05:58 PM new
Breyer was appointed by Clinton in '94.
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on April 24, 2001 12:46:02 PM new
Okay, got me. Ginsburgh and Breyer were two of the 4 dissenters and O'Connor + another Republican appointee are the other two. The thing is, at least in the case of O'Connor, she is a conservative voice in the Supreme Court. Not as extreme as Scalia of course, but conservative just the same. My point is that this wasn't another example of just the usual suspects voting the way they always do.
|
stusi
|
posted on April 24, 2001 12:55:25 PM new
james- thanks for owning up, however the bigger issue is the incredibly scary precedent that this sets. what's next? legal home invasions and arrests by the police for watching "Chains of Love" or reruns of "Cop Rock"?
|
Borillar
|
posted on April 24, 2001 12:56:56 PM new
Speaking of Scalia! When the Gore-Bush Florida Vote thing came up to the Supreme Court, Scalia had a son who was working for Bush in Florida on that very issue. Normally, any judge would have removed themself from the case because it was a clear conflict of interest. But Scalia didn't care about Right or Wrong -- just what he could get away with.
Compassionate Conservatism, indeed!
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on April 24, 2001 12:59:39 PM new
I totally agree with you on the larger issue itself. I am not pleased by this ruling at all but I was just addressing the point that this was yet another manifestation of the boogiemen Republicans getting the little people.
|
krs
|
posted on April 24, 2001 01:01:13 PM new
Actually, he had two sons working for firms working for bush. The whole family works for bush.
|
stusi
|
posted on April 24, 2001 01:01:55 PM new
borillar- i remember that clearly. it was very disturbing. only 3 1/2 years until the next election.
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on April 24, 2001 01:07:03 PM new
What would the procedure be if a Supreme Court judge refused to judge a case? Is there any precedent that someone knows of?
|
stusi
|
posted on April 24, 2001 01:11:08 PM new
james- it's not so much a question of getting the little people unless you mean the populace in general. i don't think the police would be so bold as to ask one's political affiliation before handcuffing you. it is a question of authoritarian government believing it is doing what is best for the populace(or for itself?). krs is totally right about the Scalia family employer. very sad state of affairs!
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on April 24, 2001 01:13:44 PM new
No, I don't mean political affiliation at all. I mean if you appear to be just another average Joe Powerless (like most Americans) and a cop happens to be in a bad mood and happens to perceive some disrespect he may also happen to drag your ass into central booking with a little bit less thought then he would have, say, yesterday.
|
stusi
|
posted on April 24, 2001 01:19:00 PM new
you are right. it's scary. can't wait to see the ACLU response.
|
krs
|
posted on April 24, 2001 01:48:41 PM new
Do you think that the ACLU will act to protect the unborn fetus?
|
stusi
|
posted on April 24, 2001 04:15:23 PM new
interesting question, krs, is there any statement of their position on this? i am not a dedicated supporter of theirs although i think they do good work.
|
gravid
|
posted on April 24, 2001 06:53:23 PM new
Kind of scary that it may get to the point it is so easy to arrest you that it is basically the officers whim if he wants to do so.
I see a market here - they are going to have wireless wideband in our area soon and it is always on just like my DSL. I can see wearing a fish eye video camera with sound as a piece of jewelry and storage off site for 24 hours minimum of the output. Then if you are in a car wreck or in a store that gets robbed or you get pulled over by the cops you have an unbroken record of where you have been and what you were doing for a whole day. No way someone can falsely accuse you or frame you.
|
sadie999
|
posted on April 24, 2001 08:20:51 PM new
Once upon a time long long ago there was a country where the rights of the individual were respected.....
|
jlpiece
|
posted on April 24, 2001 11:24:34 PM new
What a sad state of affairs?  I can't believe how low this country has sunk in the respect of the right of its citizens. We all should have voted for Harry Brown.
|
figmente
|
posted on April 25, 2001 09:16:34 AM new
There have been cases where honest supreme court justices have recused themselves from specific cases due to a potential for or appearence of a conflict of interest.
Judges Scalia and Thomas each had immediate family members working for Bush. Neither cares about Right or Wrong -- just what they can get away with. Bush loves them for this.
|
jlpiece
|
posted on April 25, 2001 09:29:50 AM new
Either that or because they share the same views.
|
Borillar
|
posted on April 25, 2001 09:31:17 AM new
... and not only that, but just wait until Bush puts FOUR MORE CRIMINALS on the Supreme Court!
|
jlpiece
|
posted on April 25, 2001 09:35:49 AM new
As long as they don't throw me in jail for forgetting to buckle up.
|
