Supreme Court rules 5-4 in favor of Big Government (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2024, 12:18:13 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  Supreme Court rules 5-4 in favor of Big Government (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Supreme Court rules 5-4 in favor of Big Government  (Read 4895 times)
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,691
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW
« on: April 05, 2012, 10:38:43 AM »

So the government can strip you naked before it has even been proven you did anything wrong but it can't force you to buy health insurance and not game the system? It's just absolutely ridiculous.

I haven't developed an opinion on this yet but comparing this situation to health care is ridiculous especially considering the realities low percent of the population that gets arrested and the circumstances are completly differnt in the two situations.
It's not as low a percentage of the population as you might think.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,691
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2012, 09:27:57 AM »

Speaking as someone prosecuting a guy on his fifth drug charge (most of the others involve dealing) and said drugs were only found up the guy's butt when he was arrested on suspicion of other charges and searched, I was and am REAL happy about this decision.

That, and what Lief said. Metal detectors are expensive, and don't detect plastic weapons or drugs.

As a prosecutor, is there anything that diminishes the rights of the accused you would not be happy with?
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,691
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2012, 11:52:53 PM »
« Edited: July 07, 2012, 07:50:11 AM by shua, gm »

@ Shua and falling morgan: Your smartassed self-rightousness comments aside, I assure you both I've done more to fight government over-reaching than either of you have.

I have a great sympathy for the plaintiff here, and feel he should've been allowed to sue for false arrest and the humiliation he suffered as a result of the cavity search taken into account for damages. But that doesn't effect whether someone actually placed in incarceration post-arrest (most dui's, for example, wind up released after citation and non-jail booking) can smuggle in drugs or weapons to a jai. This is a VERY common occurrence. The results would be disastrous.

Your initial response sounded as though you were happy with the decision because it was in your professional interest as a prosecutor to charge people with drug possession. If your concern has instead to do with the safety of the jail environment, then I can respect that even if I disagree with your position on this decision.

It's likely you have done more to fight government over-reaching than I have (though you haven't given any examples in answer to my question) -  just as I imagine you have done more than I have to promote it, since I haven't been in a position to do much of either.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 12 queries.