Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

SCOTUS rulings and news


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 30 May 2017 - 05:13 PM

Hi, I am going to start off with one of the rulings today.
It is an 8-0* decision (*Gorsuch was not there for arguments so did not get to weigh in) .

I have seen arguments for/against the ruling as it is. The problem I guess I have with this ruling is that there are some serious underlying issues that don't get addressed, because that is not quite what they were ruling on, but it does leave a bad taste in many advocates of justice reform.

WaPo: SCOTUS eliminates the 'provocation rule'

Quote

The [provocation] rule holds that if a police officer recklessly promotes a potentially violent confrontation with a Fourth Amendment violation, the officer is liable for any injury caused by a subsequent use of force that results from that confrontation, even if the use of force itself was reasonable.

Follow that? If an officer violates the 4th Amendment (the one that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures), and therefor recklessly promotes/provokes a potential violent confrontation, even if the officer uses "reasonable force" in response to the force they provoked by violating the 4th amendment, the officer could be held liable for any injuries causes by this confrontation. The officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.

The USSC vacated that decision.

Quote

It was the failure to procure the warrant that was the violation for which the officers did not have immunity. Unfortunately, that isn’t the violation that caused their injuries. Hence, the provocation rule, which the Supreme Court has now deemed an anachronism.

So, breaking the fourth amendment is seen as completely separate from the actions immediately following it. The court isn't saying that the officers are allowed to do an unconstitutional search and seizure, but that that was not what was before them on the court. And so it seems they sidestep the issue by cleaving them apart, basically not addressing the excessive force because they were being asked about excessive force in relation to the 4th amendment, which does not cover appropriate/excessive force.

This ruling may not be contentious among the Justices (8-0 decision), but considering the conversation this country is having regarding officers and excessive force I doubt it will uncontroversial among regular people who follow the justice reform conversations. This story was about an innocent couple randomly barged in on, with no warrant or warning, one of whom reached for a bb gun, who has lost his leg below the knee due to cops firing on him. The other person was shot four times in the back.

Even if it was strictly a use-of-force case the courts seems to be overly deferential to cops. Which is probably why the lawyers tied to the violation of the 4th amendment, that, and the fact that this use-of-force would not have happened without violating the 4th amendment….

Edited by sierraleone, 30 May 2017 - 06:09 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#2 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 19 June 2017 - 06:45 PM

Another unanimous opinion, though the controversial more divided opinions tend to come at the end of the year, and they have taken up less divisive cases than normal due to their former even number.

While I entirely agree with the decision, the writing of the opinion leaves a bit of an odd dislike, similar to how I felt about the Gay Marriage decision vs opinion, as I wrote on here when that was new.

It is about a free-speech case, where a band wanted the trademark to the name "The Slants".

Here is the WaPo article, and a couple excerpts that quoted the opinions:


Alito:

Quote

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate."

Kennedy:

Quote

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an "egregious form of content discrimination," which is "presumptively unconstitutional." … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

THe second part, Kennedy's, is fine. But I couldn't quite put my finger on what or how I found Alito's opinion not quite right.

That may have in part to do with the fact that free speech is more restricted in my country, we actually have hate-speech laws.

So I meandered through the comments while processing this, and a commenter reached out and grabbed my finger (figuratively speaking ;) ).

Stephen Lathrop
4:21 PM EDT

Quote

Two points offered in the (undoubtedly vain) hope of interjecting thoughtfulness into the recite-by-rote responses self-styled free speech advocates fall into whenever this stuff comes up:

1. . . . but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate."

See if you can think of any prouder thing you could say on behalf of free speech. If not, then, like Justice Alito, you may not have much idea what speech freedom is about, or why it is valuable. What Alito calls a proud boast is in actuality a sad necessity—one we would do without except that we can't otherwise think of any workable method to protect speech from government meddling, except to degrade the standard of protection to the abysmal level Alito is too dense to deplore.  

2. . . . our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

Basically, the old saw restated, "The remedy for bad speech is more speech." Which makes sense in the abstract, but is no better than nonsense if the "bad speech" in question delivers actual damage to actual people right away, before "more speech" can come to the rescue. Which happens all the time. Indeed, when it does happen, the more-heedless among free speech advocates immediately get on board to demand suppression of "more speech," lest it too promptly interfere with delivery of the ever-cherished "bad speech."  


The premise behind the "more speech" nostrum has always been that we are talking about speech in the abstract. Academic style speech. Forum and counter-forum. Publish and reply. In that context, "more speech" is a fine standard. It's not so useful as a remedy for weaponized speech—targeted speech of the sort contending parties utter in real-life venues all the time these days,


His words remind me of the saying "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others".
You could say the same about capitalism and complex economic systems.
But we certainly don't want the government deciding what is acceptable speech or not, because that power can be wielded against anyone, not just the people that we find deplorable today.  That doesn't mean I don't begrudge contemptible words (content warning)
Hide: offensive
(/content warning) that were aimed at demeaning and marginalizing classes of people, even when not used towards that group. At what point does using those words become harassment? If an individual gets called these things once by a new person every day is not that harassment, even though the targeted is the same, but the targeter is not (though a targeter may target a wide swatch of strangers in this group).

Of course, I don't think any words, even these, should be outlawed. If nothing else, they are useful for figuring out which people may be worth my time, and which people are definitely not and probably can't be trusted.

So, I agree with the decision, I just don't care for Alito's reasoning.


I am going to do a second post about a 4-2 decision (where was 7, 8, and/or 9?) shortly, and keep that one short ;)

Edited by sierraleone, 20 June 2017 - 04:45 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#3 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 19 June 2017 - 07:02 PM

Another decision today:
High Court: U.S. officials can't be held liable for alleged unconstitutional treatment of non citizens

It was a 4-2 decision because Sotomayor and Kagan reclused themselves, presumably because they had worked on the case prior to joining USSC.

Quote

High-level U.S. government officials including former attorney general John D. Ashcroft and former FBI director Robert S. Mueller III cannot be held liable for the alleged unconstitutional treatment of noncitizens detained after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The court in a shorthanded 4-to-2 decisionended a long-running lawsuit filed against former officials in the administration of President George W. Bush for actions following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Hundreds of Arab and South Asian men — many of them Muslim — were arrested and detained as part of a nationwide terrorism investigation.

Six plaintiffs brought a representative suit, brought on behalf of those rounded up, who were noncitizens and lacked lawful immigration status. They alleged they were held because of their race, religion, ethnicity, and national heritage and immigration status, and were subjected to verbal and physical abuse, daily strip searches and months in solitary confinement. None of those held at the detention center in Brooklyn were found to have any connection to terrorism.

Awful :( There are quotes from both the majority and dissenting opinion in the article.

Edited by sierraleone, 19 June 2017 - 07:18 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#4 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 19 June 2017 - 09:37 PM

Anyone heard any word about whether the USSC has decided on whether to hear 45's TRAVEL BAN appeal? I know the DOJ petitioned the court for an expedited hearing and summary judgement, but does the DOJ get a preferential docket or can the Supreme Court choose to pass on hearing it and let the 4th and 9th Appeals Court's rulings abide?

#5 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 20 June 2017 - 05:32 PM

^ I can't remember, was there ever a split in the lower courts? As I understand it, especially with any split, the USSC could decline to hear the case, which would uphold the lower court rulings. I don't think though, that any USSC decision on whether to hear the appeal or not, has been made, or at least, not made public yet.

Edited by sierraleone, 20 June 2017 - 05:32 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#6 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 20 June 2017 - 05:41 PM

My google fu (and a Vox article ;) ), are telling me that this Thursday is the last closed-door USSC conference of the year, so they will likely be discussing it and deciding how exactly to handle this case.

Edited by sierraleone, 20 June 2017 - 05:50 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#7 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 20 June 2017 - 05:42 PM

^ I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that early on with the first botched EO, one of the first few federal judges, maybe in Mayland, ruled in favor of the ban. But that was the first time around, which was withdrawn and re-written as TRAVEL BAN II, which has been universally blocked by both federal courts and appeals courts.

#8 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 20 June 2017 - 05:51 PM

^ I think you are probably right. The Vox article said there was no split in the lower courts. But I thought I had remember a court ruling differently. And it would make sense if is was the 1st Muslim Travel Ban.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#9 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 26 June 2017 - 10:24 AM

The news in this morning is that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear 45's travel ban when the next term starts in October. In the meantime the Court made a partial ruling that the stay would be lifted and the  ban would go into effect in the interim, except if immigrants/visitors from the six countries under the ban had a bonafide relationship to someone already here. The vote was 6-3, with Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito dissenting. It appears safe to assume that the three dissenting justices were likely in support of 45's right to establish and enforce the travel ban. The part of the ban allowed by the Court will be put in force after 72 hours of their decision.

The Supreme Court made no mention of consideration of the appeals court's concerns about 45's campaign statements and later statements about Muslims or the religious discrimination concerns raised by plaintiffs in the lower court deliberations. One thing to consider is that the 90 day period of enforcement stipulated by 45's executive order will have expired by the time the Court takes up the case in October, raising the question of whether the case would be moot at that point.

#10 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,624 posts

Posted 26 June 2017 - 11:16 AM

^

So essientially the USSC overturned the 4th and 9th circuit courts enforcement ban, until the Court hears the case in the next session. And it layman's terms, the USSC once again B*tch slapped the 4th and 9th circuit courts.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#11 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 26 June 2017 - 11:32 AM

Going by memory... one part of ban was 90 days and another, for refugees, was 120 days, IIRC.

Jun 29 (72 hrs) Ban goes into effect.
Sep 27 (above + 90 days) the travel visa/immigration ban(?) ends.
Oct 27 (3 + 120 days) the refugee ban ends.

- from phone
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#12 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 26 June 2017 - 11:38 AM

Essientally it appears you did not fully comprehend my post. If the USSC had overturned the Appeals Court's decisions, there would be no reason to hear the case in the next session, would there? So more of a suspending of the 4th and 9th Court's decision...more of a stay on their stay. But if your mind masters at Fox are programming you that it's a b*tch slap and that warms the cockles of your heart's right ventricle, then peace be with you.  :)

#13 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,624 posts

Posted 26 June 2017 - 11:56 AM

Setting aside, for the moment, whether or not the USSC was right in their allowing enforcement of President Trump's travel ban. My question is this: What happens after the 90, or 120, days are up? I'm not talking about what happens with it regarding the Court, I mean what happens period? Does the ban stay in effect? Does the immigration from those 6 or 7 countries return to what it was before the ban?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#14 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 26 June 2017 - 12:12 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 26 June 2017 - 11:56 AM, said:

Setting aside, for the moment, whether or not the USSC was right in their allowing enforcement of President Trump's travel ban. My question is this: What happens after the 90, or 120, days are up? I'm not talking about what happens with it regarding the Court, I mean what happens period? Does the ban stay in effect? Does the immigration from those 6 or 7 countries return to what it was before the ban?

Well since 45's ban was ordered for the limited period, 90 or 120 days respectively that sierraleone laid out I would think that that would be the end of that particular executive order's specifications. That's not to say 45 couldn't have another one or two drawn up in succession for various time periods until he and his crew really get an understanding of "what's going on" over there. And then who knows, they might be emboldened to try and establish the Muslim ban in perpetuity. Or maybe they'll be limited to enforcing the order as a one shot. It depends upon what the Supreme Court rules regarding the parameters of the Appeals Court's decisions.

#15 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,624 posts

Posted 26 June 2017 - 02:21 PM

View Postyadda yadda, on 26 June 2017 - 10:24 AM, said:

The vote was 6-3, with Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito dissenting. It appears safe to assume that the three dissenting justices were likely in support of 45's right to establish and enforce the travel ban. The part of the ban allowed by the Court will be put in force after 72 hours of their decision.

From all news sources I'm seeing, you're right: Those 3 wanted to allow the full ban to take effect, aside from that minor difference in opinion, the ruling appears to have been 9-0 in President Trump's favor.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#16 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,624 posts

Posted 26 June 2017 - 02:24 PM

Also, if the ruling was 9-0 in President Trump's favor, as the White House is claiming, then when this case does go before the court, in the fall, those trying to stop the ban are facing an uphill battle.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#17 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 26 June 2017 - 04:02 PM

^ I don't know where you're getting this 9-0 nonsense, but if that's what 45 is claiming then you should figure out whatever it is he's smoking and score some because that must be some awfully good sh*t.

#18 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,624 posts

Posted 27 June 2017 - 03:04 PM

I've searched, and searched, and have found NO where on the internet where it disputes the 9-0 ruling in this case. Even the 3 Justices you mentioned didn't dissent so much as say: "We would've prefered to have the full ban, as written, in force...but failing that yes we also agree to this partial restoration." Unless, of course, you have sources that claim otherwise? Because I'm seeing nothing about any Justice not going along with the ban being reinstated.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#19 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 27 June 2017 - 03:23 PM

Show me somewhere on the internet where it says that a 6-3 USSC decision is really a 9-0 decision, except for 45's tweeted crack pipe dream. Which by the way actually said 9-O, in true 45ish stupidity. I'm surprised that 45 didn't tweet brag out a claim for a 10-0 vindication if you count Scalia's ghost's opinion.

Six Supreme Court Justices voted to lift the lower appeals court's stay on the Muslim ban Executive Order and return to confer as to its Constitutional validity and legality three months down the road. They clarified and ruled that the Muslim ban EO could NOT be enforced on immigrants from the six specified countries who had green card status, visas, or immigrants who could establish a bonafide relationship to family or a support entity currently in the US. 6-3 = 6-3, and not 9-0. That's math and reality against your supposition, the only thing to support you is Donald 45's lying mouth. If Donald tweeted that the sky is not truly blue, but actually as orange as his face would you swallow that, too?

#20 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,624 posts

Posted 29 June 2017 - 12:42 AM

^

No where did those 3 dissent. Show me HOW they dissented? By saying instead of partially restoring the ban, they wanted the FULL ban in effect? That is NOT a dissent. They, not ONE of them, said words to the effect of: "We disagree with restoring the Ban."

My GOD, it's like watching that Project Veritas video that just exposed CNN's BS about Russia Russia Russia, and how they were only doing those Russian stories for the ratings. And yet people on the Left still believe the CNN  BS. Just unreal.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.


0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users