US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4104

On June 22 2016 03:22 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Jesus fucking Christ.

The Supreme Court gutted the exclusionary rule and the Fourth Amendment yesterday.

what. the. fuck. 5-3. I mean, Breyer generally has a blindspot to these types of 4th Amendment cases, but what the flipping f' did they overturn the Utah SC decision.

Sotomayor's dissent is the only good things to come from this case. Why the crap...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf

Page 14.

On June 22 2016 04:22 xDaunt wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with the opinion. Hell, it is so fact-specific that I have real trouble seeing how it will have any general applicability.

On June 22 2016 04:30 Lord Tolkien wrote:



The decision effectively legalizes illegal searches. Normally, an illegal search means that the chain of events resulting from the search, INCLUDING the acquisition of the warrant that would be used to justify the search, is void/tainted. If he was not illegally stopped and asked for ID, then the officer would not have found the warrant that would justify the search for evidence, and could not have have justification for a more invasive search: the chain of events cannot occur without the search. That is fundamentally what the exclusionary rule is about.

It does require the officer be operating under "good faith" and only having conducted it out of "negligence", but honestly, the claim of negligence can be so readily used to justify almost any stop and readily used as cover for abuses of power, which is fundamentally what the Fourth Amendment is trying to protect us from.

Allowing "breaches of convenience" is a really bad idea here.


It's a massive loophole they've added to something that could've been uncontroversial (Utah SC ruled unanimously to strike down the evidence), though the Fourth has been worn down quite abit. But ARGH. All of the possibilities for police to target racial minorities and poor communities that this opens up.

On June 22 2016 04:53 xDaunt wrote:


This is rather hyperbolic. The exclusionary rule has long had exceptions to it. So really what we're talking about is whether the Fourth Amendment has a new, big hole in it. I think it's pretty clear that the answer to that question is no. We can argue about the severity of the officer's misconduct (frankly, I agree with the Court that his misconduct was marginal at best), but the real linchpin of the opinion is the fact that the defendant had an outstanding warrant for his arrest. The Court makes this very clear. At most, what this case really stands for is that the existence of a preexisting arrest warrant can provide an exception to the exclusionary rule as long as long as the misconduct of the police is de minimis. All this really means is that dipshit criminals now need to make sure that they comply with existing governmental process burdens in addition to ensuring that they aren't doing something stupid like driving around with broken tail lights. I don't see this new opinion as being a particularly useful vehicle for abuse.

On June 22 2016 05:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:

Again, first I would point out the large number of open arrest warrants in the country, most of which stems from small infractions like unpaid parking tickets, etc. In NYC, there's 1.2 million warrants, in Ferguson, there's ~33,000 open arrest warrants in a community of ~21,000.

There is a great deal of potential for abuse here. First, warrants tend to be heavily enforced in minority or poor neighborhoods where they can be aggressively pursued. This essentially opens the possibility of officers making routine stops without probable cause near or poor neighborhoods, demand ID, and search for a (probable) warrant, search, repeat.

It incentivizes shit like Stop and Frisk. That's why it's problematic and why Sotomayor's dissent is so compelling, because the argument that this is an "isolated" case deserves skepticism.

On June 22 2016 04:53 Doodsmack wrote:
I do believe Republicans shit the bed by losing to Trump's hostile takeover. I predicted very long ago that Trump and Hillary would be the nominees and Hillary would crush him. I would call myself a psychic if it wasn't so obvious that the tea party/Obama-is-a-Muslim wing of the Republican party would spell disaster.

On June 22 2016 05:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:

Again, first I would point out the large number of open arrest warrants in the country, most of which stems from small infractions like unpaid parking tickets, etc. In NYC, there's 1.2 million warrants, in Ferguson, there's ~33,000 open arrest warrants in a community of ~21,000.

There is a great deal of potential for abuse here. First, warrants tend to be heavily enforced in minority or poor neighborhoods where they can be aggressively pursued. This essentially opens the possibility of officers making routine stops without probable cause near or poor neighborhoods, demand ID, and search for a (probable) warrant, search, repeat.

It incentivizes shit like Stop and Frisk. That's why it's problematic and why Sotomayor's dissent is so compelling, because the argument that this is an "isolated" case deserves skepticism.

On June 22 2016 05:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:

Again, first I would point out the large number of open arrest warrants in the country, most of which stems from small infractions like unpaid parking tickets, etc. In NYC, there's 1.2 million warrants, in Ferguson, there's ~33,000 open arrest warrants in a community of ~21,000.

There is a great deal of potential for abuse here. First, warrants tend to be heavily enforced in minority or poor neighborhoods where they can be aggressively pursued. This essentially opens the possibility of officers making routine stops without probable cause near or poor neighborhoods, demand ID, and search for a (probable) warrant, search, repeat.

It incentivizes shit like Stop and Frisk. That's why it's problematic and why Sotomayor's dissent is so compelling, because the argument that this is an "isolated" case deserves skepticism.

On June 22 2016 05:35 SolaR- wrote:


You literally write the same non content shit over and over. Filled with i told you so crap and "that candidate is an idiot LOL".

I know this is a waste of a post, but this is like the 5th post in the last few pages by you that is just freaking annoying and stupid.

On June 22 2016 08:22 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe Trump is threatening to not raise money for the party. This has officially entered into complete insanity. Is Trump just going to threaten every ally by ending treaties if they don't agree to trade tariffs? His idea of fair is complete madness. I think his idea of fair is complete surrender and subordination.

On June 22 2016 04:30 Lord Tolkien wrote:



The decision effectively legalizes illegal searches. Normally, an illegal search means that the chain of events resulting from the search, INCLUDING the acquisition of the warrant that would be used to justify the search, is void/tainted. If he was not illegally stopped and asked for ID, then the officer would not have found the warrant that would justify the search for evidence, and could not have have justification for a more invasive search: the chain of events cannot occur without the search. That is fundamentally what the exclusionary rule is about.

It does require the officer be operating under "good faith" and only having conducted it out of "negligence", but honestly, the claim of negligence can be so readily used to justify almost any stop and readily used as cover for abuses of power, which is fundamentally what the Fourth Amendment is trying to protect us from.

Allowing "breaches of convenience" is a really bad idea here.


It's a massive loophole they've added to something that could've been uncontroversial (Utah SC ruled unanimously to strike down the evidence), though the Fourth has been worn down quite abit. But ARGH. All of the possibilities for police to target racial minorities and poor communities that this opens up.

It's times like this when I miss Scalia. He would've written a fiery dissent condemning the court for this.

The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation was among the organizations breached by suspected Russian hackers in a dragnet of the U.S. political apparatus ahead of the November election, according to three people familiar with the matter.

The attacks on the foundation’s network, as well as those of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, compound concerns about her digital security even as the FBI continues to investigate her use of a personal e-mail server while she was secretary of state.

Clinton Foundation officials said the organization hadn’t been notified of the breach and declined to comment further. The compromise of the foundation’s computers was first identified by government investigators as recently as last week, the people familiar with the matter said. Agents monitor servers used by hackers to communicate with their targets, giving them a back channel view of attacks, often even before the victims detect them. [...]

The thefts set the stage for what could be a Washington remake of the public shaming that shook Sony in 2014, when thousands of inflammatory internal e-mails filled with gossip about world leaders and Hollywood stars were made public. Donor information and opposition research on Trump purportedly stolen from the Democratic Party has surfaced online, and the culprit has threatened to publish thousands more documents.