7 ms·
A good & surprising ruling, somewhat restoring the supreme court's prolonged erosion of that right after its establishment by congress in the 1871 Ku Klux Klan
by ahelwer 6y ago
A good & surprising ruling, somewhat restoring the supreme court's prolonged erosion of that right after its establishment by congress in the 1871 Ku Klux Klan act. Qualified immunity is purely an invention of the courts; it should be done away with.
- an_opabinia 6y agoFor every wrongfully convicted inmate seeking money, won't there be 10 corporations suing over adverse regulatory findings?
- jstanley 6y agoWhich would be a fine ratio, on the basis that it's better to let 100 guilty men walk free than to convict 1 innocent man.
- Privacy846 6y agoCorporations are not people, however.
- refurb 6y agoThey aren’t. They are groups of people. If we apply your statement are you saying corporations have zero constitutional protections? The state could seize their assets without compensation? Enter a company’s property to search it at any time and without a warrant?
- Privacy846 6y agoMy comment was a reference to corporate personhood, the legal notion that corporations are considered to be persons per se (i.e. not “groups of people”). Which is practiced in some countries, like e.g. the United States. That makes no sense to me, but that’s the kind of world we live in. So relax. Corporations don’t need your apologetics—they’re doing just fine.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- willis936 6y agoHow is prosecution a violation of rights? Illegal search and seizure or unwarranted detainment is a violation of rights.
- lumost 6y agoIllegal search and seizure can often result in unlawful prosecution.
- otterley 6y agoWe already have a remedy for unlawful search and seizure: exclusion of evidence. Google “fruit of the poisonous tree” to learn more.
- mtgx 6y agoThe fbi does it s lot these days and gets away with it. Actually the latest FISA renewal gives FBI and 16 other gov agencies access to full raw internet data and they can search it all they want...but they need a warrant to bring it to court. However, by now they've become experts at parallel construction and they usually outsmart judges and even defence attorneys on technical issues.
- tharne 6y agoThat's only a partial remedy. Having your home illegally searched is not made right simply because anything found during that search can't be used to prosecute you. You still had you home and privacy violated.
- jcranmer 6y agoUntil parallel construction kicks in and the police find some way to introduce the unlawful evidence anyways.
- otterley 6y agoParallel construction does not mean the evidence gets to be introduced. Other evidence collected by other lawful means would have to be obtained. Parallel construction refers to the act of lawfully collecting other (perhaps similar) evidence from a different source, the existence of which was revealed by the previous unlawful search. In any event, it’s a relatively rare phenomenon, and if you find yourself in trouble with the law, follow the ACLU’s advice regarding your rights, and don’t skimp on a criminal lawyer.
- ashtonkem 6y agoSo? We all benefit when state power is applied in a consistent and rights respecting ways. It doesn't do to allow government to run roughshod over one group of people just because you approve of the outcome (or disapprove of the victim), because eventually that process will be applied in a way you'll disapprove of.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- baybal2 6y agoHow strong is US constitution in front of US courts? Not that much. US courts don't follow US constitution literally, and take freedom doing a lot of "interpretation." My law professor in Canada, who once was a US citizen, and a practicing lawyer in US said: — US constitution is fairly good at protecting what's written in it, for it being near nothing. His favourite poke at the US legal system was an example how either Texan, or Kentuckian court managed to establish how "A woman is not legally a person" in a way that did not directly contradict any US law, precedent, or article of constitution. And that happened as recently as sixties, if not seventies.
- jdsully 6y agoCanada has the living tree doctrine and is similarly liberal with its constitutional interpretation - a document that is already way more watered down than the American.
- meundies9 6y agoYeah. As much as originalism can impede progress and reform in certain ways, so can generous interpretation. I don't want an Alito or an RBG - Kagan's just fine.
- selimthegrim 6y agoEnforcement Act, for those of you warming up the Google.