The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that evidence recovered during illegal stops may still be used in court, if police officers conducted their searches after learning that a defendant had an outstanding arrest warrant.
These are the kind of decisions that cause a revolution. Citizens United is another one. When the Supreme Court passes out injustice after injustice they leave us no choice. Some think this fight will end and we'll all go home, but I tell you that is not going to be the case.The hits just keep coming there is no time to go home. The next move is into the streets.
No justice no peace!
The police-state thrives on "perps" and restrictive, repressive laws, such as the War on Drugs.Cannabis, and the "broken windows" violations directly aimed at the poorest - "outstanding warrants" are just another tool in the black bag of policing in the US. Police promotions and careers are not built on civil rights or justice, common sense, job excellence, or defending the Constitution or Bill of Rights, they are built on arrests and the misery of those not able to afford Johnny Cochran!
The numerous repeated tax cuts for the richest have led to increased local and state funding on the backs of the poor - vehicle fines have been raised ten fold while the richest enjoy more equal than others status........
As one who has studied constitutional law, I am not really surprised at the dearth of replies to the instant article; after all, constitutional law is an extremely complex and perhaps arguably esoteric body of law. Also, people do tend to ignore certain issues that they perceive do not directly affect them or disproportionately affect the "undesirable" elements of society. And, that is how the power-elite slowly, but surely, eviscerate your constitutional rights--without much outcry or legitimate counter-measures by the complacent citizenry. It is a given that such ruling by the institution that represents the supreme law of the land will even further embolden the nascent police state to more effectively flex its muscles and tighten its grip on society as a whole, not just your typical notions of what constitutes a criminal.
Here is an excerpt of slate.com's related article:
"Sotomayor, who dominated oral arguments in Strieff, refused to let the majority get away with this Fourth Amendment diminution without a fight. In a stunning dissent, Sotomayor explains the startling breadth of the court’s decision. “This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong,” Sotomayor writes, in a dissent joined in part by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant.”
“Most striking about the Court’s opinion,” Sotomayor notes “is its insistence that the event here was ‘isolated,’ with ‘no indication that this unlawful stop was part of any systemic or recurrent police misconduct.’ ” But in truth, “nothing about this case is isolated.” Sotomayor then dives into the widespread police misconduct that has dominated headlines for several years, focusing on the Department of Justice’s Ferguson report to demonstrate that “outstanding warrants are surprisingly common.”
The Department of Justice, Sotomayor writes, “recently reported that in the town of Ferguson, Missouri, with a population of 21,000, 16,000 people had outstanding warrants against them.” That means 76 percent of Ferguson residents have, under the court’s decision, effectively surrendered their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. “In the St. Louis metropolitan area,” moreover, “officers ‘routinely’ stop people—on the street, at bus stops, or even in court—for no reason other than ‘an officer’s desire to check whether the subject had a municipal arrest warrant pending.’ ”
Many of you express outrage and cry out for solutions to certain problems. Most always, there are already adequate solutions in existence. However, you can bet that the ruling class certainly has a long-planned solution just waiting to be implemented. (For example, "Never let a good crisis go to waste.")
Just like being lulled and mesmerized by the Pied Piper of Hamelin, the sheeple are being fattened for the slaughter.
There is a certain "slippery" slope that is currently being traversed. It is but a short transition from a nanny-state to a police-state. Most people won’t even notice it, until it’s too late. Soon, many constitutional freedoms, which we now take for granted, will be taken away from us—ostensibly for our own protection. Once you accept such curtailments, for whatever seemly legitimate reasons, more and more people will complacently accept erosion of our freedoms and liberties.
Good-bye America the beautiful—land of the free and the home of the brave.
Hello… New World Order.
Be very careful when the government erodes or diminishes constitutional rights. It might just be wielding a double-edged sword. This can have unintended consequences; once you open the door to such actions; you begin traveling up that “slippery slope.” So, little by little, Americans will become somewhat conditioned to accept further encroachments and deprivations. Also, the government might just take advantage of our trust and abuse its authority.
The government is, slowly but surely, conditioning the citizens to accept various forms of politically correct censorship and security measures. It encourages and induces law enforcement agencies, government administrators, academicians, journalists, and others to unwittingly assist in such Orwellian efforts.
It is ever so easy for the ruling class to take advantage of perceived and actual problems—by introducing solutions that do not truly benefit the public-at-large. Instead, the proffered solutions substantially advance any number of agendas of the power elite themselves. It is a classic example of the Hegelian Dialectic: problem->reaction->solution (thesis->anti-thesis->synthesis). It is a great way to persuade the citizenry to accept something that actually is not in their best interest.
At the highest levels of decision-making,distinctions such as the democrats versus republicans, liberals versus conservatives, and the left versus the right dichotomies become blurred, and substantially disappear. Things are not always what they seem, as their ostensible motives conceal their true ones. Practically speaking, it is analogous to playing "good cop versus bad cop" in a police interrogation room. In the final analysis, they all serve the same master: the international ruling class ("power elite").
Such real power and control is primarily manifested through the “front” organizations of the global power elite: governments, financial institutions and the mainstream media; it is largely enforced via the national security, intelligence, and military apparatuses. "Divide-and-conquer" strategy takes care of the rest. This inertia is built into the system. So, is it such a surprise that—at the lower levels—the citizenry question little, and effectively "police" themselves?
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve
neither liberty nor safety."
With the Court evenly divided, it took a "liberal" judge for this decision to come down, that was Stephen Breyer.
One would think the 76% number would be front page news-maybe the president would call a news conference to highlight what is happening in this country. Maybe then some of his appointments would have voted another way.
This is one of the reasons there was a revolution in this country.
Its amazing to watch the show cops and see how people are treated. Or how about leaving some expensive car with keys in it,and the door open in some low income minority neighborhood. Why not park one of these cars in a well off white neighborhood and see what happens?????
Iets impeach these justices???
Thank you Justice Sotomayor standing up for common people.
Of course the supreme court will never recover from what they did in 2000. Any idea of rule of law ended on that day. And don't forget who was president when this happened!
I would find more credence in your comment if you spoke of the fusion between government and major corporations that's crept up in recent decades. Otherwise, government is the ONLY entity strong enough to stand up to corporate muscle. What the U.S. has fallen to is regulatory capture and the corporate takeover of prisons, mass media, the EPA, the FDA, etc.
My point is that your comment strikes me as a Libertarian screed against government, itself. Government--if it follows the blueprint set up for this nation-- is for, of, and by the People. Corporations have used their lobbying firms to write law and policy to their own advantages.
Typically, as a result of this merger, government DOES become more dysfunctional and then all those ALEC/Pete Peterson/Koch Brothers types rush in to further demonize government so that further deregulation can follow. The result is that the corporations (big banks, big pharma, big Monsanto/agri. etc.) run and own the place. THAT is hardly a positive solution.
As a Feminist, what I find compelling is that it's the 3 women Justices who see through all this Big Brother lockstep insanity. And I think many women really do... for so many centuries WE were left out of the boys' clubs and forced to watch what THEY enacted from a distance.
Too often when males get together the violence they're capable of escalates. This is seen when military kids rough up civilians, when police rush at the unarmed Black kid like a rabid pack, and when men gang-rape women and girls.
I think men have become far more conditioned to "just following orders" within an authoritarian, In Uniform, quasi police state than women.
And WE can't stand what WE see.
A Bill Clinton appointee, in fact.
I abhor redundancy where not emphatically necessary. Accordingly, please allow me to repeat myself—at the risk of seeming crude:
"At the highest levels of decision-making,distinctions such as the democrats versus republicans, liberals versus conservatives, and the left versus the right dichotomies become blurred, and substantially disappear. Things are not always what they seem, as their ostensible motives conceal their true ones. Practically speaking, it is analogous to playing 'good-cop-versus-bad-cop' in a police interrogation room. In the final analysis, they all serve the same master: the international ruling class ('power-elite')." [Emphasis added.]
"Such real power and control is primarily manifested through the 'front' organizations of the global power-elite: governments, financial institutions and the mainstream media..."
Remember what Hitler said so long ago (and I paraphrase):
* "To truly control a country, you must first control its courts. Then, anything you do is legal and anything the opposition does is illegal."
* Is that ringing any bells?
Look how this comment, in the midst of a valuable libertarian critique of the loss of freedom, has brought in the term 'nanny state' which is used against welfare, social security, universal health care. It's basically anti-take-care-of-the-sick rhetoric that has been inserted it in this pro-liberty post through the 'slippery slope' (a text book logical fallacy) and condemns i, along with the real evil, the police state.
Nice! But I'm not buying that.
This is a progressive site and such false equivalencies and slippery slope arguments ought to have no traction here. The arguments against the police state are valid and stand alone but the overreaching to include damning of needed social benefits by referring to the them as 'nanny state', is not.
Can you give a citation to the source of this quote? My searches don't turn it up.
A while back, I read this rather curious article which succinctly outlined somewhat counter-intuitive reasons why, in reality, the "hidden government" wanted more and more people to be dependent on the ostensible government for social services such as food-stamps, medicaid, welfare payments, etc. Its premise was that such pervasive phenomenon would create even more a sense of despair and complacence, as well as lower people's overall expectations as to just what constitutes the American dream.
This in turn would increase the probability of success in controlling the masses. A corollary was that dumbing-down an increasing number of the overpopulated citizenry would lessen the challenges to the "system" from those more informed and in positions to potentially represent a serious threat to the status quo. And, presumably, that means that there is no need for native population to have over a certain threshold percentage of people who are highly intuitive, analytical and critical.
Look at the ever increasing number of people on welfare, food stamps (or its equivalent), welfare, medicaid, etc.: Yes, there is economic necessity, but there are ancillary benefits in re weakening resolve to actively change things for the benefit of the "downtrodden. Also, the dysfunctional public school systems has been deliberately sabotaged; and not just for the sake of ultimately incentivizing the privatization of public K-12 education.
Those such realities, and others, can arguably be shown to support a proposition that the placement of substantial proportions of the populace on governmental social services assistance makes the recipients more manageable as their "overlords" increase their dominion.
Oh, those so manageable Scandinavians, ripe for the overlords while being kept healthy at the same time too.
* I think it is something I read about forty or fifty years ago and it stuck with me. As I said, that is a paraphrase.
* It might be from Sebastian Happner's Defying Hitler, too.
* Also could be from Mein Kamph, Or perhaps this link might have it. http://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/nazi-law-and-order/
* At 79, the old attic is pretty full and rather more cluttered than it used to be.
* When I get a chance, I'll go through my library and see if I can find it. He certainly used that technique to "good" effect, both at home and abroad.
* And, of course, we are seeing it at first hand in this country, perhaps courtesy of Operation Paperclip.
This is sickening! We need term limits on the Supreme Court and they need to be voted on by the people just like the House and Senate.
One small step for the Supreme Court, One giant leap towards full blown Martial Law.
Only your assumptions are wrong. Social services do not make people complacent nor apathetic. If anything, it gives them hope that things can get better. It also helps a lot to keep crime rates down. Desperate people commit theft when otherwise they wouldn't. I'd rather pay more taxes to support social services than to be paying to have my house repaired and my possessions replaced.
In context of the examples of your argument, I could not agree with you more. However, I wrote of several extremely complex and dynamic issues and concepts. I was extremely limited in composition as it related to conciseness and focus. I full well realize that others can dissect or onion-peel my discourse ad infinitum. But, I hope that the serious thinkers will accord me the same deference that they expect from those to whom they direct their own comments and criticisms.
If you reread the statement in context, I did not assert that social services are primarily designed to make recipients complacent. I merely made a statement regarding an underlying premise of the motives behind the implementation of certain social services, which is the control of the needy. I was referring to one of the underlying premises of an article that I read; and that particular article concerned the agendas of the "hidden government," not the formal government itself.
That said, one way that it can be accomplished is by attempts to substantially alleviate tension among the oppressed, disadvantaged or the needy people. This may effectively minimize the probability that there will be ensuing social unrest such that it reaches a critical mass that is sufficient enough to disrupt the status quo by engaging in effective and concerted efforts to undermine the socioeconomic system.
I try not to inappropriately use universal statements. Also, the context ought to make it clear that there are usually several major factors that give rise to certain policy implementations. And, one not ought to dismiss outright those that relate to hidden agenda.
One can usually ascertain patterns and connect the dots in retrospect.If you read the writings of George Soros, Zbigniew Bryzezinski, David Rockefeller, etc., you will see that far too many of their proposals come to fruition, slowly but surely albeit in a piecemeal manner
Once again, the statement I made was as follows: "A while back, I read this rather curious article which succinctly outlined somewhat counter-intuitive reasons why, in reality, the "hidden government" wanted more and more people to be dependent on the ostensible government for social services such as food-stamps, medicaid, welfare payments, etc. Its premise was that such pervasive phenomenon would create even more a sense of despair and complacence, as well as lower people's overall expectations as to just what constitutes the American dream."
I picked that up from your original statement. I still don't agree that the purpose is to control the needy. Our system of resource distribution, privatization of resources, private land ownership, whatever you want to call it, causes people to be needy. For example: American Indians weren't needy until they were denied access to the resources which they used for time immemorial to sustain themselves and were put onto reservations. They weren't made needy because they were given government commodities to eat. They weren't given commodities to control them. Shooting and killing them is what was done to control them. So, no, I do not agree with you on that point. You want to stop people from being needy, give them common lands were they can hunt, gather, and grow their own crops. As it is under the current system, you have to buy land first before you can do that. That's how people are controlled- by limiting their access to resources which really should be held in common by all of us. Welfare doesn't control people. I still say you are wrong or you are deliberately misleading....