SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›838 »

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Platystemon posted:

Is it really that simple, though? Cameras can use high magnification/shutter speed/frame rate that’s far beyond the capabilities of the human eye.

A scan with an infrared camera was ruled a search in Kyllo.

Yeah that camera had super powers that let it see through walls. Regular cameras still see plain view. Facial recognition isn't really the same as infra red. Wouldn't you let a security cop in a stadium scan the crowd with binoculars?

# ? Jun 21, 2016 12:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 16:22

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Platystemon posted:

Is it really that simple, though? Cameras can use high magnification/shutter speed/frame rate that’s far beyond the capabilities of the human eye.

A scan with an infrared camera was ruled a search in Kyllo.

IIRC Kylo didn't base that on that on infrared's capability compared to the human eye but rather it's capability compared to what was in common usage among the general public.

# ? Jun 21, 2016 13:46

TheFluff: Dec 13, 2006; FRIENDS, LISTEN TO ME
I AM A SEAGULL
OF WEALTH AND TASTE

Evil Fluffy posted:

"I don't see anything wrong with this decision."

- someone ok with living in an actual police state

The ruling should've been "you're not allowed to use evidence obtained illegally when a warrant was required and this is no different." The SCOTUS needs some public defenders to get nominated to the bench. Maybe, just maybe, we won't see it slowly erode the 4th in to nothing then.

Just going to point out here that there's a whole bunch of European countries (including most of the Scandinavian ones, the UK, Austria and Germany) that basically don't really have an equivalent of the US universal exclusionary rule. There are rules against things like confessions under duress and entrapment and various other things but in general they just leave it up to the court to judge the quality of the evidence. The cops can get in trouble for doing illegal poo poo but evidence is evidence and it can and will be used against you if the court thinks it is necessary. In fact, most countries have much weaker exclusionary rules than the US does. That it is so strong in the US is mainly because it's so old.

Here is a lot of words about how it works in Germany, or rather how it did work in West Germany in the early 80's.

TheFluff fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Jun 21, 2016

# ? Jun 21, 2016 23:30

Proust Malone: Apr 4, 2008

Platystemon posted:

Starve the ~~beast~~ pigs.

If I remember the Grapes of Wrath, starving pigs is a very bad idea.

# ? Jun 22, 2016 06:12

Rust Martialis: May 8, 2007; At night, Bavovnyatko quietly comes to the occupiers’ bases, depots, airfields, oil refineries and other places full of flammable items and starts playing with fire there

Ron Jeremy posted:

If I remember the Grapes of Wrath, starving pigs is a very bad idea.

Unless you're Bricktop.

# ? Jun 22, 2016 14:28

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

Does the 9th amendment mean anything at all? Did it ever? It seems like there's plenty of cases where it could be seen as relevant but I don't think I've ever heard of an opinion citing it.

It seems to me to basically give the judicial system carte blanche to to protect "rights" from government action even if they aren't explicitly covered by the constitution. That seems like a useful tool, so I really wonder why it gets no (explicit, anyway) use at all by the courts.

# ? Jun 22, 2016 21:15

alnilam: Nov 10, 2009

GlyphGryph posted:

Does the 9th amendment mean anything at all? Did it ever? It seems like there's plenty of cases where it could be seen as relevant but I don't think I've ever heard of an opinion citing it.

It seems to me to basically give the judicial system carte blanche to to protect "rights" from government action even if they aren't explicitly covered by the constitution. That seems like a useful tool, so I really wonder why it gets no (explicit, anyway) use at all by the courts.

I think they leave the 9th alone out of respect for Beethoven and "the curse of the 9th."

# ? Jun 22, 2016 21:18

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Warcabbit posted:

That's not a joke, by the way, he was a fan of Milestone Comics.

I just realized that a lot of people might not know that story and it's harder to find now that Dwayne McDuffie is dead and his site is gone. Here's a still-extant copy on Facebook. The intro:

quote:

My writer's block was back again and I blame the courts. I usually write all day with CNN playing in the background. That means I've been continually assaulted this week by the audio tapes of the Supreme Court hearing on our Presidential Election. You may have heard something about this. Anyway, thinking about the Supreme Court reminded me of Justice Clarence Thomas and my eerie, undue influence on him. Seriously, he's putty in my hands.
You think I'm kidding, don't you? Let me explain.
Back in 1993, my company Milestone Media had just launched its new line of comic books. From our cramped, dingy and yet incredibly high-rent Manhattan offices, we labored to turn out four comics a month. But it wasn't all hard work. Sometimes for instance, we got cranked. Our office Manager Christine Gilliam buzzed my partner, Derek Dingle.
"There's a call for you on line 2. It's Clarence Thomas."
Derek wasn't amused. "I see. Tell him I'll call him back."
Christine took the message. Several hours later, intern Jason Scott Jones, who surely should have been doing something better with his time, took a look at the phone number on the message: Washington area code. Could this possibly be for real? Derek decided to call and see. I decided to watch, as did everyone else in the office. The line rang once, and was instantly picked up.
"Justice Thomas' chambers."
"This is Derek Dingle from Milestone Media, returni�"
"He's expecting your call, one moment please."

# ? Jun 22, 2016 21:45

Proust Malone: Apr 4, 2008

So in the most recent decision getting press, the operative part seems to be that the person stopped has a warrant. If the person stopped and searched has contraband and no warrant, is that still an illegal search?

# ? Jun 22, 2016 21:53

EwokEntourage: Jun 10, 2008; BREYER: Actually, Antonin, you got it backwards. See, a power bottom is actually generating all the dissents by doing most of the work.

SCALIA: Stephen, I've heard that speed has something to do with it.

BREYER: Speed has everything to do with it.

GlyphGryph posted:

Does the 9th amendment mean anything at all? Did it ever? It seems like there's plenty of cases where it could be seen as relevant but I don't think I've ever heard of an opinion citing it.

It seems to me to basically give the judicial system carte blanche to to protect "rights" from government action even if they aren't explicitly covered by the constitution. That seems like a useful tool, so I really wonder why it gets no (explicit, anyway) use at all by the courts.

It's a truism at this point. justices have tried to use it as a source of authority, such as for substantive due process or gay marriage, but it's never been adopted by the majority.

# ? Jun 22, 2016 22:31

Ogmius815: Aug 25, 2005; centrism is a hell of a drug

I like he ninth amendment because it's fun to ask originalists what it means.

# ? Jun 22, 2016 22:35

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

GlyphGryph posted:

Does the 9th amendment mean anything at all? Did it ever? It seems like there's plenty of cases where it could be seen as relevant but I don't think I've ever heard of an opinion citing it.

It seems to me to basically give the judicial system carte blanche to to protect "rights" from government action even if they aren't explicitly covered by the constitution. That seems like a useful tool, so I really wonder why it gets no (explicit, anyway) use at all by the courts.

It does not do that. Reading it as a general protection of unstated rights introduces massive contradictions into the legal system, and would have had that effect even at the time of ratification.

# ? Jun 23, 2016 00:08

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

Discendo Vox posted:

It does not do that. Reading it as a general protection of unstated rights introduces massive contradictions into the legal system, and would have had that effect even at the time of ratification.

That's not an actual argument or an alternative explanation, just an unsupported counterclaim. Pretty weak response, I expected better from you

# ? Jun 23, 2016 00:20

ulmont: Sep 15, 2010; IF I EVER MISS VOTING IN AN ELECTION (EVEN AMERICAN IDOL) ,OR HAVE UNPAID PARKING TICKETS, PLEASE TAKE AWAY MY FRANCHISE

Discendo Vox posted:

It does not do that. Reading it as a general protection of unstated rights introduces massive contradictions into the legal system, and would have had that effect even at the time of ratification.

That's an amazingly atextual interpretation of:

quote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

...and, interestingly, recapitulates the concern that:

quote:

It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

# ? Jun 23, 2016 03:43

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

GlyphGryph posted:

That's not an actual argument or an alternative explanation, just an unsupported counterclaim. Pretty weak response, I expected better from you

I thought this was implicit, but through what mechanism do you distinguish between rights protected by the ninth amendment and rights not?

# ? Jun 23, 2016 04:19

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

ulmont posted:

That's an amazingly atextual interpretation of:

...and, interestingly, recapitulates the concern that:

Maybe read the other parts of the wikipedia article while you're citing those ones. And I'm a formalist, not a textualist.

twodot posted:

I thought this was implicit, but through what mechanism do you distinguish between rights protected by the ninth amendment and rights not?

Right. You can't. It turns the already troublesome problem of applying a strong liberal legal framework into nonsense. The government becomes completely unable to do anything because any course of action is a violation of some right. In function it's like the tenth-it doesn't change the interpretation of the Constitution, because otherwise the framework of review falls apart. Like the tenth, an expansive interpretation is selectively invoked by people who think the particular function or right or outcome they want for government is worth the other problems it would cause. Other constitutional interpretations, even the majority penumbra approach from Griswold that created the privacy right, offer the potential for a more meaningful interpretative framework than a pure expansive reading of the ninth amendment.

# ? Jun 23, 2016 04:40

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

twodot posted:

I thought this was implicit, but through what mechanism do you distinguish between rights protected by the ninth amendment and rights not?

I'll volunteer to be that guy

# ? Jun 23, 2016 07:57

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

twodot posted:

I thought this was implicit, but through what mechanism do you distinguish between rights protected by the ninth amendment and rights not?

The same way you distinguish between specific speech rights protected by the first amendment and those not - through the courts. Obviously. You are acting as if you arent just describing something the courts already do.

So, since you are reaponding for vox, are you arguing that the 9th is completely meaningless or what? That it was just included on a lark and was not intended to hold any actual weight?

# ? Jun 23, 2016 12:35

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

twodot posted:

I thought this was implicit, but through what mechanism do you distinguish between rights protected by the ninth amendment and rights not?

The 9th, as I read it, basically prohibits the argument that because a right is not specifically enumerated - e.g. privacy - that it doesn't exist period, but you still need to make the case why it's a constitutional right to begin with. It's fine to apply a high standard before finding an unenumerated right though.

# ? Jun 23, 2016 13:34

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Three boxes today. Liveblog here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/06/live-blog-of-opinions-30/

# ? Jun 23, 2016 14:57

Slate Action: Feb 13, 2012; by exmarx

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/745980614688505856

Kagan writes, Kennedy concurs, Thomas concurs separately, Breyer and Ginsburg dissent, Alito dissents separately.

# ? Jun 23, 2016 15:04

Sir Tonk: Apr 18, 2006; Young Orc

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mathis-v-united-states/

reversed eighth circuit decision

# ? Jun 23, 2016 15:04

silvergoose: Mar 18, 2006; IT IS SAID THE TEARS OF THE BWEENIX CAN HEAL ALL WOUNDS

Slate Action posted:

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/745980614688505856

Kagan writes, Kennedy concurs, Thomas concurs separately, Breyer and Ginsburg dissent, Alito dissents separately.

That is one of the weirdest splits I've ever seen.

# ? Jun 23, 2016 15:05

Sir Tonk: Apr 18, 2006; Young Orc

yeah for real

# ? Jun 23, 2016 15:05

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Slate Action posted:

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/745980614688505856

Kagan writes, Kennedy concurs, Thomas concurs separately, Breyer and Ginsburg dissent, Alito dissents separately.

Who is the new 9th justice?!?

# ? Jun 23, 2016 15:08

Slate Action: Feb 13, 2012; by exmarx

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/745981758269689856

Alito writes, Sotomayor and Ginsburg concur in part and dissent in part, Thomas concurs in judgment and dissents in part.

# ? Jun 23, 2016 15:08

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

GlyphGryph posted:

Does the 9th amendment mean anything at all? Did it ever? It seems like there's plenty of cases where it could be seen as relevant but I don't think I've ever heard of an opinion citing it.

It seems to me to basically give the judicial system carte blanche to to protect "rights" from government action even if they aren't explicitly covered by the constitution. That seems like a useful tool, so I really wonder why it gets no (explicit, anyway) use at all by the courts.

There is some precedent for citing the Ninth Amendment for privacy cases, most notably in a concurrence in Griswold v. Conneticut (the case protecting contraceptive rights) and the original District ruling in Roe v. Wade.

But, yeah, nothing I can find too important and recent.

# ? Jun 23, 2016 15:13

Slate Action: Feb 13, 2012; by exmarx

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/745983390696996869
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/745983506568876033

Kennedy writes, Thomas dissents, Alito dissents, Thomas and Roberts join Alito's Dissent, Kagan was recused.

# ? Jun 23, 2016 15:14

Torrannor: Apr 27, 2013; ---FAGNER---
TEAM-MATE

Slate Action posted:

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/745983390696996869

Kennedy writes, Thomas dissents, Alito dissents, Thomas and Roberts join Alito's Dissent, Kagan was recused.

That's surprising!

# ? Jun 23, 2016 15:15

Sulphagnist: Oct 10, 2006; WARNING! INTRUDERS DETECTED

It has to have been 4-3 if Kagan was recused. Scalia's death bringing dividends once again.

Edit: "From Alito dissent: Something strange has happened since our prior deci� sion in this case."

# ? Jun 23, 2016 15:16

Torrannor: Apr 27, 2013; ---FAGNER---
TEAM-MATE

Antti posted:

It has to have been 4-3 if Kagan was recused. Scalia's death bringing dividends once again.

That's true. See also the 6-3 decision further up, Scotusblog is screwing up a bit here.

# ? Jun 23, 2016 15:17

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Antti posted:

It has to have been 4-3 if Kagan was recused. Scalia's death bringing dividends once again.

From Alito dissent: "Something strange has happened since our prior deci�sion in this case."

# ? Jun 23, 2016 15:17

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Torrannor posted:

That's surprising!

It certainly is. This was probably the last chance they will have for a long time to overturn race conscious admissions too

# ? Jun 23, 2016 15:17

Slate Action: Feb 13, 2012; by exmarx

The Fisher opinion was 20 page, but Alito is reading his 50 page dissent from the bench.

# ? Jun 23, 2016 15:20

silvergoose: Mar 18, 2006; IT IS SAID THE TEARS OF THE BWEENIX CAN HEAL ALL WOUNDS

Alito is reading (some of) his 50 page dissent from the bench. Which basically only happens when the justice is really goddamn pissed at the result.

# ? Jun 23, 2016 15:20

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

SCOTUS blog posted:

Holding: The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrest for drunk driving but not warrantless blood tests.

Sotomayor and Ginsburg would hold both kinds of test unconstitutional. Thomas would hold both constitutional.

Of course he would.

# ? Jun 23, 2016 15:21

Dubstep Jesus: Jun 27, 2012; by exmarx

hobbesmaster posted:

Of course he would.

The idea of "warrantless blood tests" is horrifying.

# ? Jun 23, 2016 15:25

mastershakeman: Oct 28, 2008; by vyelkin

Dubstep Jesus posted:

The idea of "warrantless blood tests" is horrifying.

So is warrantless breathalyzer but here we are

# ? Jun 23, 2016 15:26

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Dubstep Jesus posted:

The idea of "warrantless blood tests" is horrifying.

Reminder: Clarence Thomas thought it was okay to have school administrators, not even cops, search a 13-year old girl's vagina with no warrent or any requirements if they believed she might be hiding contraband up there while on school property.

# ? Jun 23, 2016 15:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 16:22

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

mastershakeman posted:

So is warrantless breathalyzer but here we are

Its a search incident to arrest and you can clearly tell when someone has alcohol on their breath without any special equipment so its not too far out there.

# ? Jun 23, 2016 15:28

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›838 »