|
Keeshhound posted:Yes. Warrantless searches can be reasonable. No one has disputed this. Now you need to show why this specific case is an example of such a search. That's odd because the question you asked was Keeshhound posted:I don't know where you got the idea that I hadn't read the case by the time I asked you to read it as well, but regardless, obviously we got off on the wrong foot. I was absolutely being an rear end in a top hat when I posted the text of the 4th amendment as though you didn't know what it was. But you still haven't articulated why you were so sure that the police:
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
Green Crayons posted:First, you're confusing "what this a search?" with "was this search reasonable?" After looking into this, I think this is a dumb way for the law to look at it but you are correct that it is how the law looks at it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That's odd because the question you asked was .... yes? I asked you to explain why that scenario was not a 4th amendment violation. Do you really think that saying "it could have been reasonable!" and not providing any supporting arguments is anything other than a blatant dodge of the question?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Yes I am aware. That's why I said it. It seems like in drug investigations it sort of becomes the exception that devours the rule, but I definitely understand why courts rule that way. I was only recently introduced to this fact pattern. It still astounds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:.... yes? I asked you to explain why that scenario was not a 4th amendment violation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
twodot posted:Regardless of who's right, it's odd to specify "without a warrant", but fail to specify "unreasonable", unless you think "without a warrant" is sufficient to demonstrate your point. Why not include "unreasonable" if you think it's true and necessary to your point? I do believe that several of the events at issue in Mitchell v. Henderson constitute an unreasonable search and seizure of Mr. Mitchel's person and property. Thus far, Jarmak has been asserting the position that it was, in fact, reasonable. Or that it could have been. It's hard to piece together anything coherent out of their posts at the moment. Regardless, I have been asking Jarmak to elaborate on the reasoning that led them to that position, and part of that was outlining what I saw as the most significant fourth amendment violations in Mitchell and requesting that they supply a counternarrative. For me to specifically refer to each event as being an unreasonable search or seizure would be putting my own conclusions into the premises from which I am asking Jarmak to construct an argument against my own, which is not only disingenuous and just extremely poor rhetoric, but would distract from the conversation I'm hoping to have, should Jarmak ever stop trying to dance around having to commit to a position.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:What's the shortest turnaround the Supreme Court has made on reversing a decision? I ask because Citizens United IIRC was partly decided on "Nobody could possibly believe that this would cause corruption". Could a Court with a more-liberal replacement for Scalia reverse it without being unseemly in its haste? Even if they reverse CU it will do pretty much nothing to stop 'money in politics' because the first amendment exists and it would take a radically different reading of it to allow for the sort of restrictions of political speech that lefties are imagining. Even countries without the hurdle of the first and have a lot of latitude in restricting political speech have found themselves unable to impact the problem in a meaningful way for that matter because without completely draconian restrictions you aren't going to stop money from finding it's way in. I've never actually heard a cogent response from a 'RAH MONEY POLITICS' person about how exactly they would restrict money in a way that actually mattered given modern technology. Which is why Bernie spoke in platitudes rather than specifics because he didn't have a fuckin' clue either. Considering how well he did it's obviously not the problem he makes it out to be either, and social media has leveled the playing field for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:I do believe that several of the events at issue in Mitchell v. Henderson constitute an unreasonable search and seizure of Mr. Mitchel's person and property.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:I do believe that several of the events at issue in Mitchell v. Henderson constitute an unreasonable search and seizure of Mr. Mitchel's person and property. Thus far, Jarmak has been asserting the position that it was, in fact, reasonable. Or that it could have been. It's hard to piece together anything coherent out of their posts at the moment. You've spent this entire argument losing your loving mind over lack of warrant up to and including trying to quote the fourth directly like a smug moron from a sov cit message board. Now you're spewing random gibberish and oddly referring to me in the plural, literally stating how you refuse to make an affirmative argument in the same sentence you are bitching about me not addressing arguments you are talking about not making. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Now you're spewing random gibberish and oddly referring to me in the plural, literally stating how you refuse to make an affirmative argument in the same sentence you are bitching about me not addressing arguments you are talking about not making. In fairness, singular they is pretty darn acceptable, grammatically. I'd guess that Keeshhound has no idea what your gender is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
All three plaintiff firms on that case withdrew. Someone with pacer look to see if they got a new attorney, the deadline was today
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:In fairness, singular they is pretty darn acceptable, grammatically. I'd guess that Keeshhound has no idea what your gender is. Not when the tenses don't match. I'll admit I didn't think of that though, that post is still gibberish either way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is a totally fine belief, I just don't understand why it took you so long to articulate it, given you started with talking about that there was no warrant, which wasn't in dispute. Most (all?) of your posts haven't acknowledged that police could legally conduct a search absent a warrant, which makes it hard to engage with what you've said. Then let me say it right now: it is entirely possible for police to engage in warrantless searches that are not fourth amendment violations. This was not the case in Mitchel v. Henderson. Jarmak posted:You've spent this entire argument losing your loving mind over lack of warrant up to and including trying to quote the fourth directly like a smug moron from a sov cit message board. I have been asking for you to explain the reasoning process which led to you declaring that the Mitchel searches were reasonable, and therefor not fourth amendment violations. Thus far you have attempted to use ad hominem attacks and utterly disconnected legal theorizing to dance around the issue of having to actually support your position. So let's do this one more time; Jarmak, please explain why it is that you believe that the actions of the police at issue in the currently litigated case Mitchell v. Henderson do not constitute a breach of the plaintiff's fourth amendment rights. As an example, I will provide my own arguments for why they do constitute such a violation: Mitchell was in his own home at the time. There is a long established legal precedent that one has a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (link provided, because you have previously shown that you don't know a loving thing about legal precedents) while in their own dwelling. As such, there are very few conditions under which a warrantless search could be "reasonable." Were it a case of genuine emergency, or where someone's life were in danger, it might be reasonable for police to enter Mr. Mitchel's property, however, neither of those were the case. It is true that the officers were responding to a domestic violence situation at Mitchel's neighbor's home, and had wished to use Mitchel's home to gain a "tactical advantage," however that does not represent the kind of immediate danger that would make their forced entry reasonable. As such, when the Henderson PD breached and siezed Mitchell's home they violated his fourth amendment rights. Moving on to the arrest; there are very few circumstances in which an unwarranted arrest can be considered reasonable. Police can arrest a felony suspect without a warrant if they are in a public place and have probable cause. Mitchell had committed no crimes of a felony nature, and was in his own home and the police had no probable cause. And finally, the search; warrant is not required for searches made during a lawful arrest. So that's out. Further, those warrantless searches are justified by the arresting officer's right to protect themselves by confiscating an ares tee's weapons, so it's limited to their personage and the surrounding area. Even if the arrest had been legal, it wouldn't have justified searching the whole house. Much like the original forced entry, had there been an emergency or some kind of risk to life and limb they might have been able to justify a search. There was not, and they cannot. Also, in case you aren't a native speaker, "they" is both a plural pronoun, and a gender neutral one. I don't know you well enough to ask about your preference, or to bother checking your profile. And, because I can already hear your idiot protestations, border searches and driver checkpoints are allowed under the fourth because they seek to remedy specific social ills (smuggling, illegal immigration, drunk driving, etc.) which are not easily confronted through more traditional means. Broader checkpoints aimed simply at catching criminals in general are considered in violation of the fourth. In no way shape or form.are these specific exceptions applicable to a house search. You utter clown.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Ah I see we're back to the "nothing has ever been perfect, therefore we shouldn't try to be good" arguement. The problem is no one complaining about Clinton's hypothetical picks has been able to offer a definition of "good" that doesn't boil down to "nominate judges who agree with me." Clinton nominating like her daughter to guarantee she'll rule the way mummy tells her to would be bad, it would be easy to make that case. No one has been able to explain why it is bad for Clinton to nominate a justice who agrees with Ginsberg or Sotomayor on an issue where Clinton agrees with Ginsberg or Sotomayor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Who cares? Now that Republicans have been essentially purged from the state government, California is functional again. It would be fantastic if we eliminated gerrymandering nationwide but that's not legally possible since the states get to run their own systems. Republicans have no problems doing it, as evidenced by the massive bias in US House seats, and in this case it's fixed a wildly dysfunctional system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The problem is no one complaining about Clinton's hypothetical picks has been able to offer a definition of "good" that doesn't boil down to "nominate judges who agree with me." My own personal definition of "good" is that the justice takes into account not just the law and precedent but also considers and weighs how the law and the ruling they are writing actually works in the real world and how it affects the average person instead of acting like everyone is a beep-boop automaton without nefarious intent. As examples I would point at abortion restrictions, voter ID, arbitration, and fourth + fifth amendment rights. The last two especially are a subject where the law and conservative justices are wildly out of touch with how people really interact with police. We don't like in Mayberry with Officer Opie: random "consensual encounters" don't actually happen because everyone outside of legal fiction land doesn't feel free to walk away from or close the door on an officer who approached them asking questions and Berghuis v. Thompkins is something straight out of Catch 22.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
Ah so now I see why you were refusing to make an argument, because you were planning on trying to play "gotcha" with the facts of the case after asking for a hypothetical argument. Before we start this let's remind our audience at home that I said this last page:Jarmak posted:edit: After reading through the whole district court decision it seems the real issue here is that the officers weren't acting on an actual exigency but loving with the plaintiff because he was being an (constitutionally protected) rear end in a top hat. To which you responded by making this argument: Keeshhound posted:I don't know where you got the idea that I hadn't read the case by the time I asked you to read it as well, but regardless, obviously we got off on the wrong foot. I was absolutely being an rear end in a top hat when I posted the text of the 4th amendment as though you didn't know what it was. But you still haven't articulated why you were so sure that the police: So with context in mind let's begin: Keeshhound posted:Then let me say it right now: it is entirely possible for police to engage in warrantless searches that are not fourth amendment violations. I'm sure I'm not the only one that's news to since your endless raging and focus on lack of warrants is what prompted me to tell you to shut up in the first place since it displays a singular lack of understanding of the issue, the very first thing I posted on this issue was to say that this would seem to fall under emergency doctrine and since then I've been trying to get over the hill of getting you to acknowledge the reasonableness clause exists, so I'm not sure where you're getting off saying I've never made an argument. Keeshhound posted:As an example, I will provide my own arguments for why they do constitute such a violation: Expectation of privacy has absolutely zero relevance in this case, even your own wikipedia link tell you that if you'd bothered to read it. Also maybe if you want to tell people they don't know "a loving thing about legal precedents" you might try linking say, an actual case? Like Katz or Kylo? Instead of trying to cite an irrelevant wikipedia article? If you read the actual source material instead of misinterpreting a summary you'd probably realize that this has nothing to do with this case. The general concept of the home being inviolable though dates back to common law and would be weighed appropriately against the exigency. Keeshhound posted:Were it a case of genuine emergency, or where someone's life were in danger, it might be reasonable for police to enter Mr. Mitchel's property, however, neither of those were the case. It is true that the officers were responding to a domestic violence situation at Mitchel's neighbor's home, and had wished to use Mitchel's home to gain a "tactical advantage," however that does not represent the kind of immediate danger that would make their forced entry reasonable. In a hostage situation someone's life would absolutely be in danger and that was the hypothetical you posed. You can argue on the theory or you can argue on the facts. You don't get to make sweeping proclamations on the theory and then run back to a particular set of facts when you get called out on it. I already said the facts don't support the police on this one because it doesn't appear there was a real emergency. You never made that argument until now you just screeched about warrants. Keeshhound posted:Moving on to the arrest; there are very few circumstances in which an unwarranted arrest can be considered reasonable. Police can arrest a felony suspect without a warrant if they are in a public place and have probable cause. Mitchell had committed no crimes of a felony nature, and was in his own home and the police had no probable cause. This is incorrect, this is not the only circumstance a cop can execute a warrantless arrest, they can also arrest if the crime (not felony) is committed in their presence and a similar exigency exception applies to arrests as well. Largely though the legality of the arrest follows the legality of the seizure of the home, if the cops couldn't legally occupy the home then the arrest for obstructing that occupation would likewise be illegal. So unless you have a specific reason why the arrest was illegal even in the fact of the legality of the occupation (like the dumb "it wasn't a felony thing") this is a pointless thing to argue Keeshhound posted:And finally, the search; warrant is not required for searches made during a lawful arrest. So that's out. Further, those warrantless searches are justified by the arresting officer's right to protect themselves by confiscating an ares tee's weapons, so it's limited to their personage and the surrounding area. Even if the arrest had been legal, it wouldn't have justified searching the whole house. Much like the original forced entry, had there been an emergency or some kind of risk to life and limb they might have been able to justify a search. There was not, and they cannot. Again, legality largely follows the legality of the entry and subsequent arrest, though it does sound like the cops might have exceeded the allowable scope either way. Keeshhound posted:Also, in case you aren't a native speaker, "they" is both a plural pronoun, and a gender neutral one. I don't know you well enough to ask about your preference, or to bother checking your profile. No, drunk driver checkpoints are allowed based on their minimally intrusive nature and the compelling interest to stop drunk driving they fulfil, border searches are allowed because the government has a right to control points of entry into the country, they are related only in the sense of the adherence to the reasonableness clause.... which is ironically why I brought up border searches to begin with (I never said anything about DUI checkpoints though?) Jarmak fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
North Carolina has appealed the overturning of their voter ID law to the Supreme Court and also asked for an emergency stay on the Fourth Circuit's decision, arguing that it guts Shelby County by amounting to a court-driven "preclearance regime" and "effectively locks States into whatever practices happen to benefit the political party that minorities prefer". Think Roberts is going to appreciate this case showing up on his desk just three years after he ruled that there totally wasn't any reason to assume that historically discriminatory states were still discriminatory?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
I don't know enough about Roberts to guess whether his thirty year long dream to destroy the VRA was because he is a rich, white dude and doesn't understand racism whatsoever or if he is evil. The difference there probably determines how he reacts to the recent openly racist candor of the proponents of voting rights laws.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
So, uh. Did they literally say that minorities being able to vote disproportionately benefits a mysteriously unnamed political party?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Ah so now I see why you were refusing to make an argument, because you were planning on trying to play "gotcha" with the facts of the case after asking for a hypothetical argument. Before we start this let's remind our audience at home that I said this last page: Alright, fine. Let's drop that and focus on what was said before we had all the facts. Jarmak, I'm not asking you to defend yourself against the actual facts of the case anymore. Instead I'm asking you why your first instinct upon hearing about it, and seeing me ask "how is this not a 4a violation" was: quote:Why is it a fourth violation? Seems like a "reasonable" seizure to me given that it was temporary and contemporaneous with an emergency situation. What about the description of the events we had received to that point convinced you that this was an appropriate search, seizure and arrest? Why is it that to your mind, a person doing something stupid and illegal gives the police authority to break into their neighbor's home for something as nebulous as a "tactical advantage?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:So, uh. Did they literally say that minorities being able to vote disproportionately benefits a mysteriously unnamed political party? Other way around. NC has built their argument on the fact that it's not illegal to target a political party - unlike race, party affiliation isn't protected. Basically, they claim that it's not illegal if you just so happen to target minority communities with a laser focus for disenfranchisement, as long as the ultimate goal is partisan rather than racial disenfranchisement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Alright, fine. Let's drop that and focus on what was said before we had all the facts. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up its the neighbor's wrongdoing at play, the emergency exception is for the preservation of human life not because someone "deserves" to lose their fourth amendment protection. And yes I thought we were talking about a hostage situation since standoff + domestic abuse frequently means the abusee is stuck in the house. So yes I think a hostage situation next door triggers the emergency exception.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
I hope a judge tells them to just borrow a drat ladder from the FD next time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm not sure why you keep bringing up its the neighbor's wrongdoing at play, the emergency exception is for the preservation of human life not because someone "deserves" to lose their fourth amendment protection. I keep bringing up the neighbor's wrongdoing because that's what happened here: party A was in a standoff with the police, and they attempted to claim party B's property for a "tactical advantage" So for me at least, I'm going to need to hear a lot more about how that "tactical advantage" is going to save someone's life or at least significantly reduce the danger before I just give it blanket coverage as an emergency exception. I'm not saying it couldn't be appropriate. Just that I'm not willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I guess you are. That's... fair, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Other way around. NC has built their argument on the fact that it's not illegal to target a political party - unlike race, party affiliation isn't protected. Basically, they claim that it's not illegal if you just so happen to target minority communities with a laser focus for disenfranchisement, as long as the ultimate goal is partisan rather than racial disenfranchisement. Tell me that's not actually a valid legal argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Tell me that's not actually a valid legal argument. Sure as hell sounds like a 1st violation to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Tell me that's not actually a valid legal argument. We'll have to wait to see just how much Roberts and Kennedy want to ignore reality and pretend that racism is dead in this case. Most likely it's either Kennedy is beset by his better angels or the court rules 4-4 thus upholding the Appeals Court ruling that NC is run by racist morons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Gyges posted:We'll have to wait to see just how much Roberts and Kennedy want to ignore reality and pretend that racism is dead in this case. Most likely it's either Kennedy is beset by his better angels or the court rules 4-4 thus upholding the Appeals Court ruling that NC is run by racist morons. I can't wait to see Roberts come out and give another statement about how some cities having African American mayors invalidates these blatant racists having power over an entire state.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You've spent this entire argument losing your loving mind over lack of warrant up to and including trying to quote the fourth directly like a smug moron from a sov cit message board. Ad hominems aside, constitutionally, the lack of a warrant is exactly the sort of thing we ought to lose our poo poo over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Sure as hell sounds like a 1st violation to me. What does voting have to do with the 1st amendment
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:What does voting have to do with the 1st amendment Freedom of association? Worth a shot, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:What does voting have to do with the 1st amendment If money is speech according to CU then voting probably falls under poltical speech as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Freedom of association? Worth a shot, maybe? What association is being blocked? Districts don't prevent you from joining a political party, they don't prevent you from voting for a specific party or person. BiohazrD posted:If money is speech according to CU then voting probably falls under poltical speech as well. all nine justices disagree with you quote:Carrigan and Justice ALITO say that legislators often “ ‘us[e] their votes to express deeply held and highly unpopular views, often at great personal or political peril.’ ” Post, at 2354 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (quoting Brief for Respondent 23). How do they express those deeply held views, one wonders? Do ballots contain a check-one-of-the-boxes attachment that will be displayed to the public, reading something like “( ) I have a deeply held view about this; ( ) this is probably desirable; ( ) this is the least of the available evils; ( ) my personal view is the other way, but my constituents want this; ( ) my personal view is the other way, but my big contributors want this; ( ) I don't have the slightest idea what this legislation does, but on my way in to vote the party Whip said vote ‘aye’ ”? There are, to be sure, instances where action conveys a symbolic meaning—such as the burning of a flag to convey disagreement with a country's policies, see Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 406, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989). But the act of voting symbolizes nothing. It discloses, to be sure, that the legislator wishes (for whatever reason) that the proposition on the floor be adopted, just as a physical assault discloses that the attacker dislikes the victim *127 . But neither the one nor the other is an act of communication. Cf. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 66, 126 S.Ct. 1297, 164 L.Ed.2d 156 (2006) (expressive value was “not created by the conduct itself but by the speech that accompanies it”). EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:What does voting have to do with the 1st amendment It's a government action targeting people for holding a specific political ideology, by their own admission.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:What association is being blocked? Districts don't prevent you from joining a political party, they don't prevent you from voting for a specific party or person. That's ridiculous. "Forest for the trees", I guess
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:So, uh. Did they literally say that minorities being able to vote disproportionately benefits a mysteriously unnamed political party? The Fourth Circuit decision striking down the law said as much and openly called then out on that. To be more exact, NC stated that if disparate impact on minorities is evidence of discriminatory intent, then it's impossible to impose any voting restrictions that disproportionately hurt whichever party is more popular with minorities (because any attempt to suppress that party's voters will necessarily disproportionately impact minorities). They also point to the fact that (a couple of) the practices ended by the voter ID law were put in place by a previous (Democrat-dominated) legislature, in order to imply that the voting law changes were just "policy disagreements between two political parties". They're arguing that what's illegal is not "disenfranchising minorities" but "intentionally targeting minorities for disenfranchisement for explicitly racist reasons". It's the same old dog whistles: they're saying that if they set out to disenfranchise "Democratic demographics" and the measures they take primarily impact minorities, they shouldn't have that law smacked down for racism because then all voter ID laws would be racist. They also argue in their request that since minorities nationwide are less likely to have IDs and less likely to be able to get them, banning voter ID laws with a disparate impact on minorities would amount to a de facto ban on voter ID. Since the Supreme Court has previously upheld voter ID requirements as constitutional, NC is trying to present the Fourth Circuit's ruling as an attempt to loophole around that by imposing restrictions no voter ID law could possibly meet. Also, North Carolina claims that the voter ID laws did not have a disparate racial impact, and have (cherry-picked) statistics to support it. The District Court believed those statistics, and appeals courts have limited latitude to overturn findings of fact, so the Fourth Circuit chose to ignore the issue of discriminatory impact, and instead focus on discriminatory intent, which gave them more leeway in calling bullshit on the District Court's ruling. North Carolina points to that in their request, claiming that the facts show there was no discriminatory effect so how could they possibly have had discriminatory intent? Mors Rattus posted:Tell me that's not actually a valid legal argument. It's clearly and unambiguously illegal and unconstitutional to enact a voter ID law for the direct and explicit purpose of racial discrimination. It's not illegal to enact a voter ID law that's intended to disproportionately impact demographics that vote for a particular political party, such as "young people" or "gun owners".
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:That's ridiculous. "Forest for the trees", I guess It's pretty clear that voting is covered by amendments dealing specifically with voting and not with the first amendment, which is why cases like the NC case was decided on a 14th amendment equal protection basis Keeshhound posted:It's a government action targeting people for holding a specific political ideology, by their own admission. This "admission" was a forums poster. The 4th circuit opinions says quote:For example, the State argued before the district court that the General Assembly enacted changes to early voting laws to avoid “political gamesmanship” with respect to the hours and locations of early voting centers. J.A. 22348. These are the reasons for various changes the 4th touches on quote:The State contends that one purpose of SL 2013-381’s reduction in early voting days was to correct inconsistencies among counties in the locations and hours of early voting centers. J.A. 3325; 22348-50. They are BS excuses, and the court calls them on it quote:The record thus makes obvious that the “problem” the majority in the General Assembly sought to remedy was emerging support for the minority party. Identifying and restricting the ways African Americans vote was an easy and effective way to do so EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:It's pretty clear that voting is covered by amendments dealing specifically with voting and not with the first amendment, which is why cases like the NC case was decided on a 14th amendment equal protection basis I may be misreading then; I thought the argument in question was that they were claiming it wasn't illegal for them to target members of political parties for disenfranchisement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
Keeshhound posted:I may be misreading then; I thought the argument in question was that they were claiming it wasn't illegal for them to target members of political parties for disenfranchisement. Gerrymandering on the basis of political belief isn't barred. It probably should be, and it might one day be barred, but it currently isn't AFAIK. This is because gerrymandering doesn't actually stop you from exercising for your first amendment rights. you can still vote, you can still express political opinions, you can still join political parties, etc. That plus obvious intent for voting to be covered by other amendments, and that targeting on political beliefs is usually targeting based on race in actuality. AFAIK, there haven't been any court cases that challenge gerrymandering based on explicit targeting of political beliefs. I could be wrong, and if someone has one I'd like to know. Same goes for any gerrymandering challenge on a first amendment basis
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:25
|
|