If I provide an anonymous tip (or identified really) that you in your car with your license plate ran me off the road does that provide reasonable suspicion? What if you in fact did not do any such thing? What if I make the same report on 100 cars?
How are you using the term ‘reasonable suspicion’ that is satisfied by an anonymous tip? It isn’t “specific and articulable facts”, “taken together with rational inferences from those facts”. An anonymous tip is not a set of articulable facts in any sense of how that should be used. In this case, there was zero basis to perform the traffic stop other than the tip. The police followed the target car for about 5 minutes without observing anything that would justify a traffic stop.
If I provide a tip that my neighbor is running a meth lab in his house, the police may come by and knock on the door and ask to look around but without anything else to go on and without a warrant, my neighbor is free to tell them to go pound sand, or not answer the door at all. This case is analogous, except that now the police would be able to compel my neighbor to open the door for their conversation.
But the reckless driving would have been over with by the time the police starting following the vehicle. Police may make a Terry stop when they have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is “afoot.” When the criminal activity has ended, no seizure can be made except upon warrant (with the exceptions) and probable cause. The majority conceded this (at least for the purposes of the case).
One instance does not a trend make :rolleyes: Nor two, if you’ve got another case in mind. Maybe come back with a list of the times Scalia crossed over and then we’ll talk
In their cases, I would argue that Ginsburg or Sotomayor ends up on the correct side that just happens to be liberal. I’m a firm believer of that retort that “Reality has a liberal bias”.
I think you would agree, speaking of Scalia, that a more robust analysis of whether or not Scalia’s an outcome picker first or second would depend on a full assessment of his voting history? I have no idea how many times he’s sided with the liberals on 5-4 cases, we’d have to come up with criteria to determine first what are the liberal sides and justices he’s worked with and which cases apply. My impression, uncited as it is, is that for at least some infamous cases, he’s strictly on the opposite side of the liberals. Plus, his speeches outside his role as a judge points to a very conservative, and not at all liberal, bias
There’s 2 ways to answer that. One is they shouldn’t because it goes against their self interests. The other is that they should because it is the correct side. Given that I believe many conservatives either through ignorance, hatred, or vileness purposefully play to (or exaggerate) conservative biases as an act for nefarious reasons, I could objectively state that they should switch to the liberal side because a rising tide lifts all boats. There is precedent for changing sides if one believes something in error and changing would grant them benefits they believe their erroneous philosophy would provide
Which, I believe, conservatives have severely harmed through unprecedented levels of obstruction and lying
Flag burning. If that arch-conservative John Paul Stevens had his way it would still be illegal to burn the flag, but Mr. Progressive Scalia saved the day.
There are actually quite a few cases where Scalia has ruled on the left side of the issue. As Bricker said, he is a textualist and his rulings go where the text leads him. He does not, as you suggest, have a predetermined outcome and try to fit it.
around here a lot of cars get stopped for having their license plate light not working and a search usually discovers several pounds of marijuana in the trunk.
I’ve often wondered how the officer got that little light to stop working … was it before or after he stopped them?
Yes, that’s well put, and I share your aversion to that kind of teleology, though I see an equal–maybe even greater–drawback to blind positivism about the process itself. There’s an annoying tendency in public discourse (and often on this board) to see the process as a means of determining some kind of absolute “truth” (the molecular composition of water, so to speak), rather than a collective agreement about how to handle disputes, (as you aptly describe it), and we can’t ignore the fact that those who do the handling naturally will have vested interests to one degree or another.
You home is quite different from your car, I think home-based analogies are fundamentally inapt. We can better approach the question by comparing your car to your person, because both are mobile and both are capable of doing bad things.
If someone calls in a guy in a red jacket and black trousers who appears to be prowling houses, the police will look for such a person and detain them on word, at least long enough to establish whether they should be arrested (as in taken for questioning). This is not significantly different from making a call about a car, other than the remote possibility that in the intervening time between the call and the apprehension, there might have been a change of drivers.
Yes, vehicles as analogies aren’t totally apt. If an officer approaches me on the street I will ask him if I’m being detained. If not they can go pound sand. Are you saying that an officer will be able to articulate why they are detaining me? No way should an anonymous tip on a person walking down the street give justification for detaining a person without other support. This would allow police to stop a person for any reason or no reason.
“We got a report of a suspicious person, mind if I ask you some questions?”
“Am I being detained?”
“No, but I’d like to ask you some questions.”
“Pound sand.”
Scalia refuses to hold that high punitive damages violate the constitution.
In any event, why would someone holding a job with life tenure and financially secure be beholden to anyone? He could tell the whole world to go fuck off and it wouldn’t hurt him a bit. The idea that he is someone’s ideological slave lacks any merit at all.
I disagree that it goes against their self-interest.
And I disagree it’s the correct side.
So we have a conundrum: I want my conservative ideas to be adopted by government; you want your liberal ideas to be adopted by government.
My guys own guns, by the way. I’m just sayin’…
So rather than take to the streets in pitched battles for control of DC, we have made an agreement about how disputes in which policy to adopt are settled.
Do you want to abandon that agreement? Because the system you’re proposing, the one in which only liberals get to make policy, is one that will never be adopted because there are enough opponents to it to scuttle it. It seems to me that you want to simply be proclaimed the ruling party, and in the absence of an official proclamation you’re going to proceed in your discussions as though it were true anyway, or at least as though it self-evidently SHOULD be true anyway. Neither proposition is provable objectively.
So you’re asking your readers to accept a proposition that you’re absolutely convinced is the factual truth…but for which there is no possibility of objective, certain proof of truth.
So if that’s permissible, let me tell you about God’s plan for you, and how His Son died on the cross for your sins and the sins of all mankind. Granted, I have no objective verifiable proof… but I don’t need it, right?
I’m certain that you have said that you wanted a Republican controlled Congress and President. That would be a country controlled by Republicans. How is wanting a country controlled by liberals any different?
Congress doesn’t make laws based on objective truth, either. They make laws based on their own beliefs and the beliefs of their constituents. How is it wrong for me to want a supermajority to agree with my beliefs? If I believe I am right, why would I want the people who I believe are wrong to be in control?
Yeah, politics and religion are quite similar in this respect. They are inherently belief-based. If politics were about facts, we wouldn’t need to vote.
Politics is inherently devoid of objective truth. I don’t see why that should keep me from having a political viewpoint.
A brief pat-down of the outer portions of clothes, sufficient to ensure officer safety, and only if the officer has reasonable suspicion that his safety is in danger.
I want a GOP-controlled Congress and White House, yes. but specifically: I want that result only because the GOP Congressional candidates win more votes in their districts/states than their rivals, and because the GOP Presidential candidate wins more electoral votes than his rival.
In other words, I want the system to work. I would rather adhere to the system and have my guys lose than adopt the approach of supporting whatever standard happens to result in my guys winning.
Sure. The difference is that I’m rebutting the statement that only liberals should make rules. My view is that the rules should be followed, and I urge people to select conservatives under those rules. Yogsooth is advocating the slightly more extreme position that because liberals are correct, rules or no rules, they should be in charge.
Well again, there’s a couple ways to answer that. I could say that I took your question as an intellectual exercise and simply stated my idealized version of what should be. The way the question was phrased and the direction of this discussion is supportive of that, I think.
Or I can say that in the real world, I know there’s a trade-off between things and that one will never get 100% of what one wants, and each one of us self limits in ways to get the best possible outcome realistically or ideally. It reminds me of some gun debates I’ve had where people say that they have to fight tooth and nail against every encroachment because people like me, gun banners, exist. But realistically, I wouldn’t not spend much time on guns at all, I’m content with some safety measures codified into law and that’s it. Because the battle to get to the point where I want to be, a total gun ban, is far too hard and long for me to fight and I’d rather spend my time on other things.
In this real world then, I will vote and favor liberal ideas and not try to create a world where only liberals are allowed to make laws, because its too hard and unrealistic. But if I don’t have to spend too much time on it, I certainly would undercut any conservative movement taking place. Attack their ideas, their members, show and paint their supporters as crazy, whatever it takes that doesn’t take too long. Those things are easy. But you’d be surprised how much compromise I’m willing to make if I should ever be in government because I’m not a Tea Bagging fool who refuses to listen to the other side
It doesn’t cost me a lot to sit here and rant against Scalia, so I’ll do it. Any small way I can undermine him in the eyes of people is a good thing, and if its also true, so much the better
But if you demonstrate a willingness to fabricate your complaints – or, more generously, if you demonstrate a lack of concern about the factual accuracy of your complaints – might that not ultimately hurt your overall mission by causing readers to distrust you?
