The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Are you talking about the North Carolina criminal case?

I suspect most people who read or hear about that case have this reaction. The cops stopped a guy and discovered he had cocaine in his car. He was convicted of having the cocaine. What's the problem?

The general public may understand the need for probable cause to stop someone, or search their car. But in this case the guy's taillight was out. Arcane legal arguments about whether one light or both had to be out, and "reasonable mistakes" of law or fact go right past most of the public, liberal or conservative.

But if you spend your life constantly concerned about the overly repressive State, isn't this the first step towards black helicopters and gulags?

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Are you talking about the North Carolina criminal case?

I suspect most people who read or hear about that case have this reaction. The cops stopped a guy and discovered he had cocaine in his car. He was convicted of having the cocaine. What's the problem?

The general public may understand the need for probable cause to stop someone, or search their car. But in this case the guy's taillight was out. Arcane legal arguments about whether one light or both had to be out, and "reasonable mistakes" of law or fact go right past most of the public, liberal or conservative.

While true, in Minnesota a broken tail light (or any basic moving violation like speeding) is not enough to allow a search of the vehicle or a person. Problem is 99% of the people on the road dont know that and consent thinking they have to.

My late cousin was a pretty well known attorney in Minnesota and he would give us the same advice every time the subject came up: "If they ask you say no." Had a law professor who said the same thing.

edit: Not commenting on this case just making a general point.

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

But if you spend your life constantly concerned about the overly repressive State, isn't this the first step towards black helicopters and gulags?

Smart conservatives recognize the need to let the cops repress a white guy now and again.

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Smart conservatives recognize the need to let the cops repress a white guy now and again.

Good thinking!

[Jimjamesak]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

http://deadspin.com/fighters-sue-the...-fe-1672044117

Not sure where to put this, but kind of wanted a more legalese opinion.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Genuine curiosity:

Do recipients of public assistance money have a constitutional right to spend that money on drugs and alcohol? or can states legally mandate that they have to pass a drug test first to continue to receive the money?

(I'm not asking about whether it is good policy or not, I'm sure the know-it-alls already have that answer, I'm merely asking if it is legal or not).

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Genuine curiosity:

Do recipients of public assistance money have a constitutional right to spend that money on drugs and alcohol? or can states legally mandate that they have to pass a drug test first to continue to receive the money?

(I'm not asking about whether it is good policy or not, I'm sure the know-it-alls already have that answer, I'm merely asking if it is legal or not).

What do you consider public assistance? Social Security? Medicare? Military pensions? Government salary? Corporate welfare?

[Foxton]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Genuine curiosity:

Do recipients of public assistance money have a constitutional right to spend that money on drugs and alcohol? or can states legally mandate that they have to pass a drug test first to continue to receive the money?

(I'm not asking about whether it is good policy or not, I'm sure the know-it-alls already have that answer, I'm merely asking if it is legal or not).

You're so full of **** your eyes must be brown.

[unofan]

Genuine curiosity:

Do recipients of public assistance money have a constitutional right to spend that money on drugs and alcohol? or can states legally mandate that they have to pass a drug test first to continue to receive the money?

(I'm not asking about whether it is good policy or not, I'm sure the know-it-alls already have that answer, I'm merely asking if it is legal or not).

Since you can't use traditional welfare to buy either of those things, you're really asking if they should be allowed to spend their own money on them now that taxpayers are providing them with food.

They have the constitutional right to spend their own money in a legal manner as they see fit, just as you or I do. They also have a fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Doesn't matter that it's the Dept. of health and human services rather than a cop; a government actor is still a government actor.

So no, you don't get to take away Billy Bob's 21st Amendment rights simply because he's getting food stamps.

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I am sure Fishy would have no such question about using public assistance to buy guns.

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I am sure Fishy would have no such question about using public assistance to buy guns.

Everyone needs lots of iron in their diet (just be careful about lead poisoning)

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Bob Gray, start learning Spanish if you want to drive around town!

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/1...3.html?hp=l3_4

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I am reminded of the sociological experiment my kids and I always wanted to try, but never did.

We talked about going into a crowded public place and then yelling "hey stupid!" loudly to see who would turn around.....

[ericredaxe]

Since you can't use traditional welfare to buy either of those things, you're really asking if they should be allowed to spend their own money on them now that taxpayers are providing them with food.

They have the constitutional right to spend their own money in a legal manner as they see fit, just as you or I do. They also have a fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Doesn't matter that it's the Dept. of health and human services rather than a cop; a government actor is still a government actor.

So no, you don't get to take away Billy Bob's 21st Amendment rights simply because he's getting food stamps.

But food stamps are not a right are they? Why could it not be conditional? "Sure you can get food stamps, but part of qualifying for them is passing a drug test".

[Carter]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I am reminded of the sociological experiment my kids and I always wanted to try, but never did.

We talked about going into a crowded public place and then yelling "hey stupid!" loudly to see who would turn around.....

How could it be a fair test if you were aware of it in advance?