4 ms·
The plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated by government officers. They sought accountability for those violations which was denied by the supreme cour
by Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
The plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated by government officers. They sought accountability for those violations which was denied by the supreme court. This will now be precedent for all the other officers who can violate rights; they can do so without accountability. It's a really big deal. This is the same supreme court that recently said that absolute proof of innocence is not a sufficient reason for the state to not execute someone.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ChrisLomont 4y ago>The plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated by government officers. The plaintiff runs an inn called Smuggler's Inn on a US border that regularly facilitates illegal border crossings. The actual opinion [1] seems pretty well reasoned, provides ample previous cases that had similar outcomes. It does not simply cancel all accountability - it maintains the balance of Constitutional powers dealing with borders, rights, and criminal activity. None of them are 100% unconstrained. Also note the vote: 6 concurred, 3 concurred in part and dissented in part. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- klyrs 4y agoThe plaintiff doesn't just run that conspicuously named inn, he also regularly informs various federal agencies about his guest's goings-on.
- ChrisLomont 4y agoAnd this case grew from an instance where he did not want to help a federal agency that was investigating a person, according to the SCOTUS opinion, that right after the incident illegally entered Canada. Maybe this person was playing both sides?