Civil Rights

[All-American]

I'm happy with the result. However, at some point the Supreme Court is going to have to stop punting and actually address if LGBTQ people are a protected class or not and what level of scrutiny will be applied to laws that discriminate on the basis of being LGBTQ.

Maybe not, if sexual orientation is now a subset of sex.

I always wondered why nobody thought back in the days of the gay marriage debate that marriage-definition laws discriminated on the basis of sex and that we should apply intermediate scrutiny.

[SeattleUte]

Because it is not the Court's job to change the law. If the law is supposed to be something different than what it is, then the legislature needs to change it.

I would rather maintain even a facade of separation of powers principles than pretend it is okay for the Court to legislate.

The thing about claims that the Supreme Court was overly aggressive interpreting the Civil Rights Act, is the Congress can always rewrite the Act if it doesn't like what the Supreme Court did, at least in theory. But Congress's polarity has resulted in an increasing ceding of power to the Supreme Court and the president. A prime example is today's DACA decision. Congress is making itself irrelevant.

Arguably this is not a good thing for democracy in the long run. But if the Supreme Court's deference to public opinion is in interest of a traditionally disadvantaged or even hated minority, I don't see any harm. The Supreme Court's role as a check on tyranny of the majority is precisely to protect such minorities.

90 percent of Americans support DCA. Wtf is wrong with the senate it can't solve this.

[All-American]

The thing about claims that the Supreme Court was overly aggressive interpreting the Civil Rights Act, is the Congress can always rewrite the Act if it doesn't like what the Supreme Court did, at least in theory. But Congress's polarity has resulted in an increasing ceding of power to the Supreme Court and the president. A prime example is today's DACA decision. Congress is making itself irrelevant.

Arguably this is not a good thing for democracy in the long run. But if the Supreme Court's deference to public opinion is in interest of a traditionally disadvantaged or even hated minority, I don't see any harm. The Supreme Court's role as a check on tyranny of the majority is precisely to protect such minorities.

90 percent of Americans support DCA. Wtf is wrong with the senate it can't solve this.

Simply put, legislative branches are not good at judicial functions and judicial branches are not good at legislative functions. The more one cedes their functions to the other the worse off we are.

[Now who’s the dean?]

Could this possibly be the very first Dwight Schrute name drop in Utah Supreme Court history? Also isn’t the court saying here that there may have been a 4th amendment problem with this search, but because the officer was acting in good faith based on a previous (now deemed unconstitutional) ruling by this court that there was no 4th amendment violation? I understand determining that the officer did nothing wrong, but wasn’t the search still illegal? Why would it matter which branch of government messed up in allowing an illegal search?

https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/su.../20190446.html


**And I don’t agree with that in the workplace**

[All-American]

Looks like it is saying there was a fourth amendment violation but they weren’t going to apply the exclusionary rule because it was a good-faith mistake.

There is a sort of logic to that. We apply the exclusionary rule to keep officers from violating the constitution to get evidence. It’s a harsh penalty, but a necessary one. But where the officer is already doing everything the then-existing law says he is supposed to do, applying the exclusionary rule arguably doesn’t serve its purpose anymore.

Still not sure I agree, but I think I understand it.

[Now who’s the dean?]

Thanks. I guess I don’t understand saying that applying the exclusionary rule here serves no purpose. If the officer had made the illegal search after getting the go ahead from his captain or the chief of police or the governor would it be excluded? In that case the captain would be the one making the mistake, not the officer. In this case the government official/s making the mistake are in the judicial branch, but isn’t it still a mistake? I know you’re not saying you agree with it, but I don’t understand the reasoning that excluding the evidence in the first scenario serves a purpose while it doesn’t in the second.


**And I don’t agree with that in the workplace**

[All-American]

The difference, I think, is that they are following the law as interpreted at that time. It’s one thing for an officer to do something he knows he shouldn’t, or a superior instructing a subordinate to do something the superior knows the subordinate shouldn’t do. But when they are following the law as it was interpreted at the time, the exclusionary rule arguably would do nothing to encourage them to do more to follow the rules, and so should not be applied in that instance.

Again, I dunno. The exclusionary rule is strong medicine, but we’ve yet to come up with a better way to keep law enforcement from ignoring the rights of the accused. I don’t love seeing it eroded.

[Now who’s the dean?]

The difference, I think, is that they are following the law as interpreted at that time. It’s one thing for an officer to do something he knows he shouldn’t, or a superior instructing a subordinate to do something the superior knows the subordinate shouldn’t do. But when they are following the law as it was interpreted at the time, the exclusionary rule arguably would do nothing to encourage them to do more to follow the rules, and so should not be applied in that instance.

Again, I dunno. The exclusionary rule is strong medicine, but we’ve yet to come up with a better way to keep law enforcement from ignoring the rights of the accused. I don’t love seeing it eroded.

[Now who’s the dean?]

Interesting. I see my above post as blank, but it shouldn’t be and I can’t edit it. Thanks for your explanation.


**And I don’t agree with that in the workplace**

[falafel]

Interesting. I see my above post as blank, but it shouldn’t be and I can’t edit it. Thanks for your explanation.


**And I don’t agree with that in the workplace**

I see it blank too.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Long post, but I wanted to tell someone... In addition to fine dining, the Civil War, and music, a principal theme of our current trip has been civil rights. We've visited such iconic sites as the Lorraine Motel and the adjacent Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, and the 16th St. Baptist Church and Jail in Birmingham. We'll see more here in Atlanta, but the past couple of days in Montgomery were especially great. Bryan Stevenson and his Equal Justice Initiative recently opened the Legacy Museum (from enslavement to mass incarceration) which is an absolute must-see for anyone who can get there. Among the fascinating displays and exhibits were two dozen stations where a large video screen shows an incarcerated person waiting for you to pick up the phone handset on the other side from where they're sitting. When you do, the inmate picks up his handset, thanks you for coming to see him or her, and then relates a brief story about why he or she is behind bars. Many of the inmates are discussed in Stevenson's book, Just Mercy, and it was cool to actually see the real person tell you the brief story (they didn't use actors). There were several video rooms where multiple film loops are running on a variety of topics, ALL of them very well done and fascinating. We were both moved to tears a couple of times. One could easily spend several hours there. We only spent 2-3 hours and wish we could go back for more. We also visited the related Peace and Justice Memorial honoring/remembering the >4,000 known lynching victims in the U.S. It is impossible to visit these sites and not be changed.

This morning we were able to meet Bryan and speak with him for awhile about his work. He's even more gracious in person than he seems in interviews and TED talks, and acted genuinely interested in our reactions to what we'd seen. Mrs. PAC told him she was most deeply touched by the stories of formerly enslaved women who, post-Civil War, took out ads (which are on display) to be reunited with their lost, formerly enslaved children. She teared up as she gave her impressions and Bryan got a bit choked up, too. As we left, I told him that some writers (see, e.g., Ibram X. Kendi) I've been reading recently have left me feeling depressed and thinking many in the movement are hopeless about the future. Bryan was emphatic that we was very hopeful (and happy!), and that hopelessness is the opposite of justice, Great guy whom we'll be happy to support in our very small way going forward.

This trip has affected us deeply and we're going to be a bit more activist-oriented upon our return.

IMG_1626.jpeg

[Soccermom]

Long post, but I wanted to tell someone... In addition to fine dining, the Civil War, and music, a principal theme of our current trip has been civil rights. We've visited such iconic sites as the Lorraine Motel and the adjacent Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, and the 16th St. Baptist Church and Jail in Birmingham. We'll see more here in Atlanta, but the past couple of days in Montgomery were especially great. Bryan Stevenson and his Equal Justice Initiative recently opened the Legacy Museum (from enslavement to mass incarceration) which is an absolute must-see for anyone who can get there. Among the fascinating displays and exhibits were two dozen stations where a large video screen shows an incarcerated person waiting for you to pick up the phone handset on the other side from where they're sitting. When you do, the inmate picks up his handset, thanks you for coming to see him or her, and then relates a brief story about why he or she is behind bars. Many of the inmates are discussed in Stevenson's book, Just Mercy, and it was cool to actually see the real person tell you the brief story (they didn't use actors). There were several video rooms where multiple film loops are running on a variety of topics, ALL of them very well done and fascinating. We were both moved to tears a couple of times. One could easily spend several hours there. We only spent 2-3 hours and wish we could go back for more. We also visited the related Peace and Justice Memorial honoring/remembering the >4,000 known lynching victims in the U.S. It is impossible to visit these sites and not be changed.

This morning we were able to meet Bryan and speak with him for awhile about his work. He's even more gracious in person than he seems in interviews and TED talks, and acted genuinely interested in our reactions to what we'd seen. Mrs. PAC told him she was most deeply touched by the stories of formerly enslaved women who, post-Civil War, took out ads (which are on display) to be reunited with their lost, formerly enslaved children. She teared up as she gave her impressions and Bryan got a bit choked up, too. As we left, I told him that some writers (see, e.g., Ibram X. Kendi) I've been reading recently have left me feeling depressed and thinking many in the movement are hopeless about the future. Bryan was emphatic that we was very hopeful (and happy!), and that hopelessness is the opposite of justice, Great guy whom we'll be happy to support in our very small way going forward.

This trip has affected us deeply and we're going to be a bit more activist-oriented upon our return.

IMG_1626.jpeg

Wow that is cool. His book really impacted me. He has truly devoted his life to justice. What an honor you got to meet him.

[Northwestcoug]

Very very cool PAC. I don’t know how that guy exhudes optimism every time I see him talk. That museum is on my list.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Wow!! Happy for you, and a little jealous. One of my personal heroes.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I didn't mention CS by name, but I told him I had several friends who read his book and were forever changed with respect to their views on the death penalty, which pleased him very much...