Hacker News Reader

Comment by check89 | Hacker News Reader

> With the current US Court System, I expect this will be allowed if this raid ever gets to the Supreme Court.

What do you mean?

The current USSC is very politicized and wanting to enact their form of justice that departs strongly with jurisprudence as it has been understood for decades.

In short they want to legislate from the bench.

What do you mean departing from jurisprudence? Are you saying that overturning precedent is a departure from jurisprudence? If that is the case, then you would be incorrect that it is a departure that has been understood for decades. Here is a list: https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overru...

> The current USSC is very politicized

How so?

> departs strongly with jurisprudence as it has been understood for decades

How so?

> they want to legislate from the bench

How so?

If you don't understand how the current court has decided to relitigate multiple previously long-held decisions, you need to do some homework and come back.

As expected, you (and the GP) don't have any answers. You're just bloviating because you're leftists.

They mean that the Supreme Court is a fascist institution that will always side with the police.

I passed 3 bar exams -- my default rule of thumb for the multiple-choice questions was that the Supreme Court would always side against the little guy when law enforcement was involved.

>the Supreme Court would always side against the little guy when law enforcement was involved.

That's not accurate.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-564

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-r...

Maybe always being the word getting your research gears engaged. What does the reverse look like where the cases were ruled in favor of law enforcement? If the 4 examples pale to the new number, I'd be willing to say always myself

>Maybe always being the word getting your research gears engaged.

Yes, but I've been following legal decisions since it was obvious there were severe issues with many local jurisdictions. The current SCOTUS seems to be pretty strong regarding rights lately, Roe being the exception.

>What does the reverse look like where the cases were ruled in favor of law enforcement?

I dunno, maybe point out some recent decisions you don't like, lets discuss them.

> Roe being the exception.

What do you mean?

Scrolling through the decisions since Ginsburg was replaced with Barret, the cases that dealt with police have gone as follows:

* Lange v. California (police in hot pursuit of a suspect conduct warrantless entry) 9-0 in favor of the suspect

* United States v. Cooley 9-0 that tribal officers can stop non-natives on tribal land. Technically pro-police, but this really isn't so much a police issue as tribal sovereignty issue.

* Taylor v. Riojas 7-1 correctional officers did not in fact hold qualified immunity

In general, recent SCOTUS decisions have generally tended to land in favor of criminal defendants with regards to 4th Amendment violations. However, where SCOTUS has tended to land strongly against criminal defendants is in regards to post-conviction reconsideration, e.g. something like https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/court-blocks-pathway-for-....

> the Supreme Court is a fascist institution

> that will always side with the police

Both claims are false.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com