Red Mosquito

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Green Habit wrote:SCOTUS just granted cert in King v. Halbig, another ACA challenge. Here's an article explaining why this could be a big deal.

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/7/7148215/ob ... idies-king

So basically it's all Scott Brown's fault.

Or it's Martha Coakley's fault for losing to Scott Brown in the first place.

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Green Habit wrote:SCOTUS just granted cert in King v. Halbig, another ACA challenge. Here's an article explaining why this could be a big deal.

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/7/7148215/ob ... idies-king

So basically it's all Scott Brown's fault.

Or it's Martha Coakley's fault for losing to Scott Brown in the first place.

Ugh, she didn't even run a campaign after the primary!

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/opini ... -amendment

Sotomayor and I agree on something. So hey, there's a silver lining. This decision seems to incentivise training police poorly so their mistaken understanding of the law will allow illegal searches to stand in court.

Apparently the old adage that ignorance of the law is no excuse only applies to the little people.

simple schoolboy wrote:http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/opini ... -amendment

Sotomayor and I agree on something. So hey, there's a silver lining. This decision seems to incentivise training police poorly so their mistaken understanding of the law will allow illegal searches to stand in court.

Apparently the old adage that ignorance of the law is no excuse only applies to the little people.

I wasn't too optimistic that a good outcome was coming from that case. Police have been increasingly given the benefit of the doubt in court for quite some time.

Green Habit wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/opini ... -amendment

Sotomayor and I agree on something. So hey, there's a silver lining. This decision seems to incentivise training police poorly so their mistaken understanding of the law will allow illegal searches to stand in court.

Apparently the old adage that ignorance of the law is no excuse only applies to the little people.

I wasn't too optimistic that a good outcome was coming from that case. Police have been increasingly given the benefit of the doubt in court for quite some time.

At what point does the 4th Amendment cease having any significance? If law enforcement was not tasked primarily with finding contraband, would we have seen this erosion?

simple schoolboy wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/opini ... -amendment

Sotomayor and I agree on something. So hey, there's a silver lining. This decision seems to incentivise training police poorly so their mistaken understanding of the law will allow illegal searches to stand in court.

Apparently the old adage that ignorance of the law is no excuse only applies to the little people.

I wasn't too optimistic that a good outcome was coming from that case. Police have been increasingly given the benefit of the doubt in court for quite some time.

At what point does the 4th Amendment cease having any significance? If law enforcement was not tasked primarily with finding contraband, would we have seen this erosion?

Perhaps it wouldn't erode as quickly, since drug laws are of course notorious for helping police to get people in the system that they think--rightly or wrongly--have committed worse crimes that they don't have the evidence to press charges on. But I think some level of erosion is inevitable if you have a Court membership that generally believes that when police make honest mistakes, it shouldn't ruin enforcement of otherwise illegal behavior. However, I would submit that when there are consequences to making mistakes, it forces police and prosecutors to be more professional and ultimately better at their jobs by making cases that weren't brought in violation of constitutional rights to be more likely to be slam dunks for conviction.

Green Habit wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/opini ... -amendment

Sotomayor and I agree on something. So hey, there's a silver lining. This decision seems to incentivise training police poorly so their mistaken understanding of the law will allow illegal searches to stand in court.

Apparently the old adage that ignorance of the law is no excuse only applies to the little people.

I wasn't too optimistic that a good outcome was coming from that case. Police have been increasingly given the benefit of the doubt in court for quite some time.

At what point does the 4th Amendment cease having any significance? If law enforcement was not tasked primarily with finding contraband, would we have seen this erosion?

Perhaps it wouldn't erode as quickly, since drug laws are of course notorious for helping police to get people in the system that they think--rightly or wrongly--have committed worse crimes that they don't have the evidence to press charges on. But I think some level of erosion is inevitable if you have a Court membership that generally believes that when police make honest mistakes, it shouldn't ruin enforcement of otherwise illegal behavior. However, I would submit that when there are consequences to making mistakes, it forces police and prosecutors to be more professional and ultimately better at their jobs by making cases that weren't brought in violation of constitutional rights to be more likely to be slam dunks for conviction.

B wrote:

FWIW, although I've always believed that deep down I'm pretty certain it was punkdavid that first put that in words for me that were easy to understand and convey.

Green Habit wrote:

B wrote:

FWIW, although I've always believed that deep down I'm pretty certain it was punkdavid that first put that in words for me that were easy to understand and convey.

Come on now, he was an awesome presence on this forum.

When did I say he wasn't?

cutuphalfdead wrote:When did I say he wasn't?

Posting a tarot card in the SCOTUS thread is pretty disjunct otherwise.

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:When did I say he wasn't?

Posting a tarot card in the SCOTUS thread is pretty disjunct otherwise.

The hermit can oft be taken to mean illuminating the way, giving insight, etc, etc. It was complimentary to the point you were making about punkdavid, while making a playful jest at him. It was a good post, it's too bad I had to explain it.

I miss pd.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:When did I say he wasn't?

Posting a tarot card in the SCOTUS thread is pretty disjunct otherwise.

The hermit can oft be taken to mean illuminating the way, giving insight, etc, etc. It was complimentary to the point you were making about punkdavid, while making a playful jest at him. It was a good post, it's too bad I had to explain it.

There's no way I would have been able to infer that from just the picture. Thanks for the explainer.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:When did I say he wasn't?

Posting a tarot card in the SCOTUS thread is pretty disjunct otherwise.

The hermit can oft be taken to mean illuminating the way, giving insight, etc, etc. It was complimentary to the point you were making about punkdavid, while making a playful jest at him. It was a good post, it's too bad I had to explain it.

I enjoyed it, Pete.

Birds in Hell wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:When did I say he wasn't?

Posting a tarot card in the SCOTUS thread is pretty disjunct otherwise.

The hermit can oft be taken to mean illuminating the way, giving insight, etc, etc. It was complimentary to the point you were making about punkdavid, while making a playful jest at him. It was a good post, it's too bad I had to explain it.

I enjoyed it, Pete.

Thanks, spenny.

Yeah, I could see a lot of talking heads explode if this happened...pretty good chance of it, too.

hahahhaaha i totally get that.

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:When did I say he wasn't?

Posting a tarot card in the SCOTUS thread is pretty disjunct otherwise.

The hermit can oft be taken to mean illuminating the way, giving insight, etc, etc. It was complimentary to the point you were making about punkdavid, while making a playful jest at him. It was a good post, it's too bad I had to explain it.

There's no way I would have been able to infer that from just the picture. Thanks for the explainer.

this was an amazing exchange