Current or modern politics in the United States

[BondJmsBond]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

What is going on when police state measures are being put in place all over the world no matter what the advertised philosophies of political parties and the legal form of government?

One of the best questions I've seen, thank you.

All I will say is I think we all have to figure it out for ourselves.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

What is going on when police state measures are being put in place all over the world no matter what the advertised philosophies of political parties and the legal form of government?

"What is going on?" -- is that surveillance is easy.

Its easy for the State, and its easy for companies, and its easy for the public.

Think of how civilian-shot videos have changed the discussion about police conduct.

I am not sure how this technical capability could be limited; it once was the case that the practical impediments to surveillance limited its frequency. You had to build a giant network of informers to really monitor random people. Today? Today with a little Google-fu you can do the same sort of background dossier on someone that would have taken a squad of STASI agents weeks of work in the past.

[Roubignol]

That's strange. It seems that you have a lot of problems with your police in the US.
We don't have so many problems here in Europe.
Maybe it's because that we are not well informed or maybe it's because we don't know what happen in other European countries because of the language barrier.
Or maybe it's because in the USA, your medias make from a small story a huge event.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

That's strange. It seems that you have a lot of problems with your police in the US.
We don't have so many problems here in Europe.

Think about what being a cop in the US means.

In a country with more guns than people, every encounter is potentially deadly. I don't defend every police shooting, but I get why they're on edge. When someone reaches into their pocket in Bristol, Dieppe or Bremen-- you don't have to assume that he's reaching for a gun.

In our country, a cop isn't crazy to think that he is.

"Guns everywhere" means a lot of split second decisions, some of which will inevitably be wrong.

[Reclaimedwg]

The left, the left, the left:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ocating-mayhem

[Reclaimedwg]

SCOTUS rules in favor of President Trump over travel ban saying its allowed because it’s for national security and also adding that it's legal and constitutional. SCOTUS also added this is not a Muslim ban and the ban itself is neutral regardless of what folks may think of it or what President Trump may tweet about it. This will nullify the challenges in the lower courts like in Hawaii and it also allows President Trump to add or remove any countries to the ban list as he wishes without having to get congressional approval. So all those judges in the lower courts that allowed the challenges and refused to uphold the Constitution of the United States should be disbarred!!

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by wildtig2013

So all those judges in the lower courts that allowed the challenges and refused to uphold the Constitution of the United States should be disbarred!!

You realize that that statement is nuts, right?

By your logic, EVERY Supreme Court decision would result in the disbarment of a good chunk of the judiciary.

Cases come to the Supreme Court precisely because lower courts don't come to agreement, and because SCOTUS itself hasn't already issued some clear decision.

The notion that a 5-4 decision, as narrow at it can be, should result in the removal of judges who held the position that was over-ruled, well that's entirely novel. Should we remove the four justices who dissented too?

I give you credit here. Its rare to hear something that I've never heard suggested before, but your idea of how the Federal judiciary works is entirely novel

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

That's strange. It seems that you have a lot of problems with your police in the US.
We don't have so many problems here in Europe.
Maybe it's because that we are not well informed or maybe it's because we don't know what happen in other European countries because of the language barrier.
Or maybe it's because in the USA, your medias make from a small story a huge event.

The United States, as it does in many other areas, has a distributed form of law enforcement. The sheriff departments and bailiffs as extensions of the local county based court systems were inherited from English practice. State created policing functions, such as highway patrols. The federal government has its agencies under the purview of various cabinet departments that have mostly defined missions, e.g., DEA = drugs, ICE = immigration enforcement, FBI = criminal activity that crosses state borders, etc.

Then we have the police forces. Municipal police forces are descended from the bouncers in saloons, brothels and gambling halls. The operators of these public services found it necessary to maintain order and safety. Especially in rowdy frontier areas, the local councils often found that hiring known killers like Wild Bill Hickok and Ben Thompson had an immediate calming effect on their cities. If not outright killers, large people who enjoyed beating folks up were given hiring preference, The downside to this policy is that our local constables developed some habits that we struggle to contain.

While 66 officers were killed by bad guys, drunks, friendly fire, etc in 2016, 57,180 were injured in felonious assaults that year. The cops killed 957, proving that they are a lot better at it than amateurs. As Wyatt Earp noted, there was a hell of a lot less crime in Cochise County after the OK Corral shootout and his little vendetta against his brother's killers. It should also be noted that the federales tired of outlaw cross border raids and crossed the border to ambush some groups during this time period.

[Reclaimedwg]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

You realize that that statement is nuts, right?

By your logic, EVERY Supreme Court decision would result in the disbarment of a good chunk of the judiciary.

Cases come to the Supreme Court precisely because lower courts don't come to agreement, and because SCOTUS itself hasn't already issued some clear decision.

The notion that a 5-4 decision, as narrow at it can be, should result in the removal of judges who held the position that was over-ruled, well that's entirely novel. Should we remove the four justices who dissented too?

I give you credit here. Its rare to hear something that I've never heard suggested before, but your idea of how the Federal judiciary works is entirely novel

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...rt-judges.html

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by wildtig2013

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...rt-judges.html

And that means what? Does that suggest that lower court judges or Justices in the minority should be "disbarred" when their position isn't upheld by the majority?

Again, your novel idea that Judges should be "disbarred" -- which means not just being kicked of the bench, but losing their law licenses- if the Supreme Court overturns their decisions-- is nuts.

Do you have any idea how many decisions are reversed on appeal in the US court system?

Decisions are reversed all the time. That's part of the normal functioning of the system. There are all sorts of issues of law which are simply not clear, the kinds of things that are decided on appeal.

Indeed, if decisions weren't reversed, there'd be no reason for Courts of Appeals in the first place . . .

I would note that, although it received much less attention, SCOTUS ruled against the Government, 8-1, in favor of an undocumented immigrant in another case that came down today,
PEREIRA v. SESSIONS. Justice Alito was the sole dissenter-- should he be "disbarred"? The 8 other justices think he got it wrong . . .

The specifics are less important here than the jurisprudence, the Justices as a group decided to overturn a prior decision of theirs, or the portion of it that's been come to be known as "Chevron deference"

In the present case, when Wescley Fonseca Pereira came before the Board of Immigration Appeals, that body held that because federal law was "ambiguous" about whether or not a "notice to appear" must necessarily include the date and time, the scales should be tipped in favor of federal immigration officials. In July 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit agreed, ruling that the federal immigration board's judgment "is entitled to Chevron deference."

The Supreme Court overruled that reliance on Chevron. Justice Sotomayor's opinion held that federal immigration officials were not entitled to such deference because federal law is clearly and unambiguously against their preferred statutory interpretation.

To make matters worse for Chevron supporters, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often holds the Court's swing vote in tight cases, wrote separately to say that "it seems necessary and appropriate to reconsider, in an appropriate case, the premises that underlie Chevron and how courts have implemented that decision." According to Kennedy, "the type of reflexive deference exhibited in some of these cases is troubling. And when deference is applied to other questions of statutory interpretation, such as an agency's interpretation of the statutory provisions that concern the scope of its own authority, it is more troubling still."

These kinds of decisions are the essential work of the Supreme Court-- sorting through thorny issues and coming up with some policy that can be applied. The notion that you'd be turfing out lower court judges who hadn't foreseen what SCOTUS would say is truly crazy.