3 ms·

I don't know that they're specifically friendly to police. If anything, they lately seem to be inclined to rein in what they view as government overreach. I wou

I don't know that they're specifically friendly to police. If anything, they lately seem to be inclined to rein in what they view as government overreach. I would not be surprised at all to see them uphold this decision.

Forgeties79 2y ago
They rein in the government calling it “overreach“ when it involves federal oversight. When it comes to LEO issues, however, they tend to side with LEO’s. The real test will be when they inevitably hear the Louisiana case about people filming police officers.
WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> I don't know that they're specifically friendly to police. Throughout the last 5 decades: The SC have increased deference to LEO and established sweeping precedent that grants increasingly wider leeway by default. exs:Good Faith Exception, Qualified Immunity and Third Party Doctrine. This is the SC before the recent conservatizing. The flags flying indicate this won't be rolled back an inch.
- LargeWu 2y ago
  Sotomayor and Thomas have both expressed disdain for qualified immunity. I think if the right case came before them we might see those protections narrowed.
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    > Sotomayor and Thomas have both expressed disdain for qualified immunity. Thomas spends an inordinate amount of time signaling that; but then signaling is his thing. Is there a chart of his prize-winning showdog ideologies? Perhaps there's one that could conflict - that he might inject into a case because he does that. Sotomayor's previous day-job was to safeguard Gov abilities to abuse civil rights, to support and defend the desires of US LEO and IC agencies. While her SC decisions can run counter to that, I'm believe it's influence can be glimpsed. In a sort of backhanded way of affirming you, there are absolutely times that a justice can go against expectation. Sometimes a justice will put the actual welfare of individuals over whatever other factors drive them. I think it's too weak a peg to hang hopes of a QI overturn, however.

Forgeties79 2y ago

They rein in the government calling it “overreach“ when it involves federal oversight. When it comes to LEO issues, however, they tend to side with LEO’s. The real test will be when they inevitably hear the Louisiana case about people filming police officers.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago

> I don't know that they're specifically friendly to police. Throughout the last 5 decades: The SC have increased deference to LEO and established sweeping precedent that grants increasingly wider leeway by default. exs:Good Faith Exception, Qualified Immunity and Third Party Doctrine. This is the SC before the recent conservatizing. The flags flying indicate this won't be rolled back an inch.

LargeWu 2y ago
Sotomayor and Thomas have both expressed disdain for qualified immunity. I think if the right case came before them we might see those protections narrowed.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > Sotomayor and Thomas have both expressed disdain for qualified immunity. Thomas spends an inordinate amount of time signaling that; but then signaling is his thing. Is there a chart of his prize-winning showdog ideologies? Perhaps there's one that could conflict - that he might inject into a case because he does that. Sotomayor's previous day-job was to safeguard Gov abilities to abuse civil rights, to support and defend the desires of US LEO and IC agencies. While her SC decisions can run counter to that, I'm believe it's influence can be glimpsed. In a sort of backhanded way of affirming you, there are absolutely times that a justice can go against expectation. Sometimes a justice will put the actual welfare of individuals over whatever other factors drive them. I think it's too weak a peg to hang hopes of a QI overturn, however.