welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The SCOTUS Thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17205
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i can see where, in some cases, it might not be best to have the parent in the room when the police question a child (as in the case where the 9-year-old was apparently pressured into accusing her father of molesting her; the questioning came about because the mother was worried that the father might be doing so, so there could be a question about the mother's impartiality) - but certainly they should have some sort of advocate who can stop proceedings if they think the child is being coerced (and a two-hour interrogation of a 9-year-old certainly sounds coercive). one would think the school authorities might take this role, but apparently, one would be wrong.

it strikes me that this might also be a start at another look at police interrogation techniques and the contexts in which confessions are obtained. there was a case here, a few years ago, where a teenage boy was questioned for some hours without his parents' presence or even knowledge and ultimately confessed to his sister's murder. someone else was later found guilty of the crime (because, among other things, the sweatshirt he was wearing at the time of his arrest had the victim's blood on it), and i think the parents are suing - but anyway, there are a number of cases when the police have forced a false confession, often after hours of interrogation. children are quite clearly vulnerable to this, but so are adults. if the supremes take the case involving children, and rule they need protection, i wonder if it might have potential to be extended to adults, as well.

not a direction that law'n'order conservatives would want it to go, of course, but it's hard to defend grilling prepubescent children for hours at a time, even if it is supposed to be to help them.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oneponytoruleall



Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 3114

PostPosted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
there was a case here, a few years ago, where a teenage boy was questioned for some hours without his parents' presence or even knowledge and ultimately confessed


This allegedly also happened with one of the Memphis Three, Jessie Misskelley, borderline retarded with an I.Q. of 72.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6282

PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 1:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think mouse hits the gist of it. The nature of the inquiry - parental abuse - means you can't get parental permission ahead of time, but certainly someone needs to advocate for/supervise the child during interrogation. Beyond that, this is one of the few areas I think leeway must be given to the officials in charge.

Kids are unreliable and officials are trigger happy, but the alternative is ignoring genuine abuse. I don't know if there's any way to cut it that doesn't end up as a soup sandwich, except maybe to be aware of past trends in success/mistakes at that particular department and tighten or loosen the reigns accordingly. Ultimately, with something so subjective, it's as much a matter of personnel as policy.
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kilgore



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2833
Location: Portland, Or

PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 4:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm sorry I missed the discussion about McDonald. To be fair, I was getting yelled at by very angry men at the time, and they weren't letting me on the internet.

At the risk of running back over old ground, the opinion is incredibly wonky. Even leaving aside the weird plurality resolution, the holding is so narrow that it provides almost no guidance for resolving future Second Amendment cases. It's actually very consistent with Heller in that respect, and I think the Court wrote it that way on purpose.
_________________
"Whatever afflicts thee, their asses I shall kick"

-Slick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12207
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FCC v. AT&T has been decided. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1279.pdf

AT&T doesn't have a person's right to privacy to prevent FOI releases of documentation they've already turned over to the government.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
E-boy



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 1552
Location: Virginia (Much barfiness)

PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good. There is something fundamentally creepy about corporations having individual rights.
_________________
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid" ~ SGT John Stryker from "Sands of Iwo Jima".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Usagi Miyamoto



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2225
Location: wish you were here

PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Congress needs to restrict those rights even further - corporations should have no rights to lobby, influence public policy on legislation or regulation, or make campaign contributions at all. That leads to nothing but corrupt legislative behavior and regulatory capture. The misuse of the 14th Amendment to extend Bill of Rights protections to bodies corporate has been the source of some wicked jurisprudence. The question of why any rights should natively inhere in something that is wholly a government fiat creation (that is, corporations as artificial persons) ought to give a logical justice pause. Not to imply that such are in great supply.

They do have a sense of humor though:

The Supreme Court wrote:
The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations. We trust that AT&T will not take it personally.

_________________
The reward for a good life is a good life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17205
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

although sometimes one wonders who the joke is on.

certainly congress _should_ restrict rights of corporations, but i strongly doubt that the lot currently in control feel any motivation to do so. they sure as hell don't want to limit campaign contributions in any way. and of course, as long as corporations can buy congressmen, congress is unlikely to write a law to stop that.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mizike



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 5131
Location: Iowa City

PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Even Hate Speech is Free Speech



Quote:
WASHINGTON — The First Amendment protects hateful protests at military funerals, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in an 8-1 decision.

...

Chief Justice Roberts suggested that the proper response to hurtful protests are general laws creating buffer zones around funerals and the like, rather than empowering of juries to punish unpopular speech.

The opinion acknowledged that “Westboro’s choice added to Mr. Snyder’s already incalculable grief” and emphasized that the ruling was narrow and limited to the kinds of protests staged by the church.

_________________
Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Kilgore



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2833
Location: Portland, Or

PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mizike wrote:
Even Hate Speech is Free Speech



Quote:
WASHINGTON — The First Amendment protects hateful protests at military funerals, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in an 8-1 decision.

...

Chief Justice Roberts suggested that the proper response to hurtful protests are general laws creating buffer zones around funerals and the like, rather than empowering of juries to punish unpopular speech.

The opinion acknowledged that “Westboro’s choice added to Mr. Snyder’s already incalculable grief” and emphasized that the ruling was narrow and limited to the kinds of protests staged by the church.


I wrote a paper about the appeals court ruling on this case last year. I think the Court made the right decision, but I'm glad that the Snyders have gotten help with their legal fees.
_________________
"Whatever afflicts thee, their asses I shall kick"

-Slick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17205
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah - this is one of those decisions that is irritating because it is right, but it benefits a group of absolute shitheads. i am also glad the snyders have help with legal fees - they already have enough pain, no need to add to it.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Celaeno



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3029
Location: Kzoo

PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

100% agreed with mouse. It is, absolutely, the right decision, but goddamn, those are horrible people.

AP wrote:
[Margie Phelps] also offered her church's view of the decision. "I think it's pretty self-explanatory, but here's the core point: The wrath of God is pouring onto this land. Rather than trying to shut us up, use your...platforms to tell this nation to mourn for your sins."


Full opinion here for those interested.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17205
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

way to get it totally wrong, margie.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3561
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WheelsOfConfusion wrote:
FCC v. AT&T has been decided. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1279.pdf

AT&T doesn't have a person's right to privacy to prevent FOI releases of documentation they've already turned over to the government.



I was under the impression that they still had Exemption 4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
E-boy



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 1552
Location: Virginia (Much barfiness)

PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Usagi Miyamoto wrote:
Congress needs to restrict those rights even further - corporations should have no rights to lobby, influence public policy on legislation or regulation, or make campaign contributions at all. That leads to nothing but corrupt legislative behavior and regulatory capture. The misuse of the 14th Amendment to extend Bill of Rights protections to bodies corporate has been the source of some wicked jurisprudence. The question of why any rights should natively inhere in something that is wholly a government fiat creation (that is, corporations as artificial persons) ought to give a logical justice pause. Not to imply that such are in great supply.

They do have a sense of humor though:

The Supreme Court wrote:
The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations. We trust that AT&T will not take it personally.


Amen
_________________
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid" ~ SGT John Stryker from "Sands of Iwo Jima".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 2 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group