Roe vs Wade vs SCOTUS legitimacy

[*Nately120*]

(05-09-2022, 12:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think Michael's point, which I hope isn't being intentionally misconstrued, is that making people aware of their constitutional rights isn't required by the Constitution.  This would be the crux of the debate around the Miranda decision.

I have to admit, as someone who finds it hilarious any time someone gets fired or blacklisted over posting/doing something because "free speech" I do, in the interest of fairness, have to admit it is also rather funny when people blather to the police without realizing the extent and nature of their rights.

Ditto for anyone who thinks his has to quarter a solider in his home against his own will.  Fools.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-09-2022, 12:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think Michael's point, which I hope isn't being intentionally misconstrued, is that making people aware of their constitutional rights isn't required by the Constitution.  This would be the crux of the debate around the Miranda decision.

Correct.  I think giving people Miranda warnings is great.  Happy for states to have laws requiring them, but calling it a Constitutional right is just made up.

[*Nately120*]

(05-09-2022, 01:54 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Correct.  I think giving people Miranda warnings is great.  Happy for states to have laws requiring them, but calling it a Constitutional right is just made up.

I recall seeing a video of (mostly) black students in grade school or jr high being taught and reciting a lesson based on how to speak to the police and be aware of your miranda rights, etc.

It was a bit uncomfortable, but it was also practical. Still, it was interesting hearing students repeat in unison stuff like this in the same style and form as "I before E except after C."

[*michaelsean*]

(05-09-2022, 01:59 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I recall seeing a video of (mostly) black students in grade school or jr high being taught and reciting a lesson based on how to speak to the police and be aware of your miranda rights, etc.

It was a bit uncomfortable, but it was also practical. 

I understand that happens and a lot of black kids are specifically taught these things, but I was taught, not at school but by my parents, how to behave towards police.  Hands on the wheel.  Yes/no sir/ma'am.  I was told you're never going to win the argument on the scene so don't try.  And back in the 80's, you knew as far as your parents were concerned, the police would be right.  

[*Nately120*]

(05-09-2022, 02:06 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I understand that happens and a lot of black kids are specifically taught these things, but I was taught, not at school but by my parents, how to behave towards police.  Hands on the wheel.  Yes/no sir/ma'am.  I was told you're never going to win the argument on the scene so don't try.  And back in the 80's, you knew as far as your parents were concerned, the police would be right.  

Sadly, having logical/good/informed parents isn't a right.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-09-2022, 02:12 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Sadly, having logical/good/informed parents isn't a right.

Don't my kids know it.

[*Nately120*]

(05-09-2022, 02:26 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Don't my kids know it.

Zing!  Well back on topic, it'll be interesting seeing how our society handles an extra million kids per year that have parents that wanted to abort them.  I'm being hyperbolic, but geez even for me that's a grim statement.  Should be interesting if nothing else. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-09-2022, 12:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think Michael's point, which I hope isn't being intentionally misconstrued, is that making people aware of their constitutional rights isn't required by the Constitution.  This would be the crux of the debate around the Miranda decision.

Agreed. I would have to say that I disagree with Miranda, myself, as a matter of law. I can see valid arguments for legislation to codify what resulted from the decision, but I don't agree with it being a Constitutional right to be notified of the rights.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-09-2022, 02:35 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Zing!  Well back on topic, it'll be interesting seeing how our society handles an extra million kids per year that have parents that wanted to abort them.  I'm being hyperbolic, but geez even for me that's a grim statement.  Should be interesting if nothing else. 

wait till Duramed Pharmaceuticals realizes they have an opportunity to INCREASE the price of plan B.  $50 will quickly turn into $100 and keep on rising.   Book it.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-09-2022, 02:06 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I understand that happens and a lot of black kids are specifically taught these things, but I was taught, not at school but by my parents, how to behave towards police.  Hands on the wheel.  Yes/no sir/ma'am.  I was told you're never going to win the argument on the scene so don't try.  And back in the 80's, you knew as far as your parents were concerned, the police would be right.  

I was taught the exact same things, almost verbatim. 

[basballguy]

So I guess the protests being led by the left are a bit more serious than I thought.

Some of y'all would be chirping pretty hard if it were right leaning individuals causing this ruckus.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/10/1097803459/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-abortion-access-protest-alito

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-10-2022, 10:58 AM)basballguy Wrote: So I guess the protests being led by the left are a bit more serious than I thought.

Some of y'all would be chirping pretty hard if it were right leaning individuals causing this ruckus.  

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/10/1097803459/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-abortion-access-protest-alito

Barr made a statement on Fox that these protests are already illegal under federal law as an attempt to intimidate or dissuade a judge.  He also stated it was a state level crime in VA.  I've stated many times that I really dislike the idea of protesting at someone's private residence, but I recognize it's protected under the first amendment.  I know many here actively dislike Barr, but I don't think he'd get the law that wrong.

[Sled21]

(05-10-2022, 11:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Barr made a statement on Fox that these protests are already illegal under federal law as an attempt to intimidate or dissuade a judge.  He also stated it was a state level crime in VA.  I've stated many times that I really dislike the idea of protesting at someone's private residence, but I recognize it's protected under the first amendment.  I know many here actively dislike Barr, but I don't think he'd get the law that wrong.

Protesting at a SC Justice's home in effort to persuade a decision is a Federal Crime. Of course, the Biden Justice Dept. won't prosecute them because they are basically their version of the Brown Shirts. Legally and equitably, these people should be prosecuted with the same vigor as the 1/6 protestors, and to do any less shows the political bias of the justice dept. 

[hollodero]

(05-10-2022, 12:24 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Protesting at a SC Justice's home in effort to persuade a decision is a Federal Crime. Of course, the Biden Justice Dept. won't prosecute them because they are basically their version of the Brown Shirts. Legally and equitably, these people should be prosecuted with the same vigor as the 1/6 protestors, and to do any less shows the political bias of the justice dept. 

You don't see a difference between storming the Capitol and protesting in front of someone's house?

(PS This question is not an endorsement of protests in front of someone's house, I think that is quite shameful)

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-10-2022, 12:24 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Protesting at a SC Justice's home in effort to persuade a decision is a Federal Crime. Of course, the Biden Justice Dept. won't prosecute them because they are basically their version of the Brown Shirts. Legally and equitably, these people should be prosecuted with the same vigor as the 1/6 protestors, and to do any less shows the political bias of the justice dept. 

If trump was prez and got his way we would be gunning these people down.

Glad we still live in America and have a first amendment.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-10-2022, 12:31 PM)hollodero Wrote: You don't see a difference between storming the Capitol and protesting in front of someone's house?

(PS This question is not an endorsement of protests in front of someone's house, I think that is quite shameful)

There's an enormous difference.  I also think it's indisputable that the protests outside the justice's homes, and the organization rallying them, are attempting to intimidate or influence the justices and if that is indeed a crime then people should be prosecuted for it.

[hollodero]

(05-10-2022, 12:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's an enormous difference.  I also think it's indisputable that the protests outside the justice's homes, and the organization rallying them, are attempting to intimidate or influence the justices and if that is indeed a crime then people should be prosecuted for it.

Yeah as I tried to make clear, I am not disputing said indisputable issue. Rallying in front of someone's private home is at the very least a shitty move aiming at intimidation and fear. Maybe it should be or is a crime. I just don't know (and am the wrong person to determine that) how that fares against the right to freely assemble and freedom of speech.

I admittedly do not trust Barr in that or any other matter though. He is a right-wing ideologue that imho appears to believe that the left has an inherently wrong worldview and that the law should be interpreted under that lens.

---
At last, I feel the urge to denounce comparing the justice department with Brown shirts (should have done so before), but that's just a sidenote really and for sure not aimed at you. I pack it in anyways since you expressed a similar stance regarding Nazi comparisons.

[Sled21]

(05-10-2022, 12:31 PM)hollodero Wrote: You don't see a difference between storming the Capitol and protesting in front of someone's house?

(PS This question is not an endorsement of protests in front of someone's house, I think that is quite shameful)

My point is both are Federal Crimes. You don't see the problem with prosecution of crime being dependent on which political party is in office and what the politics motivates the crime?

[Sled21]

(05-10-2022, 12:31 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: If trump was prez and got his way we would be gunning these people down.

Glad we still live in America and have a first amendment.

Well the only thing I can say to that is you totally do not understand the 1st Amendment. Also, tell me again how many protestors Trump gunned down again? TDS

[Sled21]

(05-10-2022, 01:18 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah as I tried to make clear, I am not disputing said indisputable issue. Rallying in front of someone's private home is at the very least a shitty move aiming at intimidation and fear. Maybe it should be or is a crime. I just don't know (and am the wrong person to determine that) how that fares against the right to freely assemble and freedom of speech.

I admittedly do not trust Barr in that or any other matter though. He is a right-wing ideologue that imho appears to believe that the left has an inherently wrong worldview and that the law should be interpreted under that lens.

---
At last, I feel the urge to denounce comparing the justice department with Brown shirts (should have done so before), but that's just a sidenote really and for sure not aimed at you. I pack it in anyways since you expressed a similar stance regarding Nazi comparisons.

There is no "If it's a crime." That is simply a red herring. 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507

Quote:
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. 

That's pretty straight forward. As for the brown shirt reference, it may not read right but I was referring to the protestors, not the Justice Dept. in that comparison. And it is strictly a historical comparison. The brown shirts were protestors used to shout down, silence, and obstruct opposing views from their party, often through illegal means without prosecution, much like Antifa et al.