The U.S. Supreme Court Is Marching in Lockstep with the Police State

[FreakinDJ]

The U.S. Supreme Court Is Marching in Lockstep with the Police State

The U.S. Supreme Court was intended to be an institution established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet as I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice. In the police state being erected around us, the police and other government agents can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.

Police officers can stop cars based only on “anonymous” tips. In a 5-4 ruling in Navarette v. California (2014), the Court declared that police officers can, under the guise of “reasonable suspicion,” stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior. This ruling came on the heels of a ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Westhoven that driving too carefully, with a rigid posture, taking a scenic route, and having acne are sufficient reasons for a police officer to suspect you of doing something illegal, detain you, search your car, and arrest you—even if you’ve done nothing illegal to warrant the stop in the first place.

You want me to believe with all the eaves dropping surveillance equipment they have today there is such a thing as "anonymous"

Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes,” justifying any and all police searches of vehicles stopped on the roadside. In Florida v. Harris (2013), a unanimous Court determined that police officers may use highly unreliable drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops. In doing so, the justices sided with police by claiming that all that the police need to do to prove probable cause for a search is simply assert that a drug detection dog has received proper training. The ruling turns man’s best friend into an extension of the police state.

Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home. In an 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v. King (2011), the Supreme Court placed their trust in the discretion of police officers, rather than in the dictates of the Constitution, when they gave police greater leeway to break into homes or apartments without a warrant. Despite the fact that the police in question ended up pursuing the wrong suspect, invaded the wrong apartment and violated just about every tenet that stands between us and a police state, the Court sanctioned the warrantless raid, leaving Americans with little real protection in the face of all manner of abuses by police.

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_us_supreme_court_is_marching_in_lockstep_with_the_police_state

Shredding the Constitution in the name of Security - the founders of this country must be ashamed of what we've done

[reddread]

1. just remember who secured Thomas' confirmation.

Its one big club, and I'll be damned if I can find a membership application.

[Pholus]

2. The machine doesn't need to care about right or wrong....

What was it that Scalia said again?

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/08/17/56525/scalia-actual-innocence/

[Triana]

3. And courts, police state and government is marching in lock-step with...

...the Big Corporations and v.wealthy (ie: Kochs et al).

Who represents or protects the ordinary American? N O B O D Y.

[heaven05]

10. thank you

for succinctly put truth.

[marmar]

4. K&R

[mckara]

5. The Fascist Five are Dangerous to American Liberty

The five conservative justices have got to go. They are ideologues, not jurists!

[leftyohiolib]

6. that's why it's important to vote for dem potus even if hillary is the nominee

[L0oniX]

8. Hillary will ensure our slavery to the corporations and war.

[leftyohiolib]

11. we cant have president republican picking the next member of scotus

[L0oniX]

12. Then we better come up with a non-corporate non-war hawk candidate that can win.

[leftyohiolib]

14. oh youre one of those "dems"

[L0oniX]

16. Back at ya!

[leftyohiolib]

17. well i guess you told me

[99th_Monkey]

15. +10 n/t

[L0oniX]

7. This country voted in assholes who give us security at the cost of freedom.

I'd rather have freedom than be confined by security. Fear is highly over rated in the home of the brave.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. We will go through this as long as we keep thinking the Right is stronger than the Left.

[CrispyQ]

18. Security that they & their rich friends profit from. -nt

[leftyohiolib]

19. they got voted in b/c some "dems" decided the democratic nominee wasnt perfect

enough to get their vote so they didnt and they let the republicans walk away with it.

[L0oniX]

20. "wasnt perfect" pffft ...what ever

[TheKentuckian]

22. and the 8-1 identified?

[christx30]

9. I[m still very nervous for the legal

standard of "legitimate interest" rather than "does the constitution say they can" when limiting what the government can do. They can come up with any law they want, no matter how invasive. "Due to the government's legitimate interest in hygiene, we are now requiring everyone change their underwear 4 times per day. And you are now required to wear them on the outside of your pants, so we can check."

[indepat]

21. Treason is treason and is being committed with impunity imo