Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Now see, about Rubio, my impression is that after his now-no-longer-retirement he had turned into an actually useful presence in the Senate. And that whoever the Democratic candidate will be will run into name recognition problems in a big state like Florida.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanRight, because they couldn't have actually performed the warrant check without getting an identification from the stop, no? That makes it look like fruit from the poisoned tree to a layman and may lead to the sort of "trawler fishing" style of investigation constitutional rights are meant to prevent.
edited 22nd Jun '16 1:19:03 PM by SomeSortOfTroper
They could have performed the warrant if they'd simply recognised him from their list of "outstanding warrants", hell even thinking "he might be that guy from the warrant notice" is probably enough to be allowed to check.
As for the risk of police doing this all the time as a form of harassment, I think that's covered by the ruling, it seems to be very specific to this particular case, where there's no history of harassment by the police and the initial stop was clearly made on a good faith belief that the stoop was legal.
Hell I still don't get why the initial stop wasn't legal.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI'm very much for strong enforcement of the 4th amendment and even I'm not sure how just stopping a guy violates it. (IANAL disclaimer and have not read deeply into the context at the moment.) Going by the very literal text: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. Does merely stopping someone constitute a "unreasonable search or seizure"?
Pretty sure if they had the resources, most jurisdictions would have cops do warrant searches every time someone new moved into the area, and periodically after that. Only thing that really protects anybody's rights is that resources are always stretched thin.
And the gun control debate is a non-starter. There are a lot of restrictions on the books already that simply aren't enforced. Even if the Dems managed to push through new regulations, they probably would only be on the books for show, not actually in effect.
You can't fix the country. The problems plaguing it are endemic to all life forms We're simply running our course until every nation collapses. If you wanted to make ANY effort to curb the violence in this country, you need mandatory psychoanalysis on every single citizen period. And that will take a long time to even begin working once you actually got it into effect, because we don't know nearly enough to actually treat the sort of people who would commit violence on the scale we're seeing.
And before you say "but gun control can start the process . . ." No, it can't. Again, there's laws on the books that already aren't enforced. The new ones will be a token so Dems get votes and the people feel comfortable for the ten seconds it takes for another set of shooting sprees across the country to kill that.
A warrant may be served on a person at their known residence or place of business, or in the course of a stop for an unrelated offense; that's all fine. Generally, however, police may not stop a person and demand identification without probable cause of some sort, whether it is the belief that they are (or were) engaged in a crime/misdemeanor, recognition of a person from a wanted poster, etc. If challenged, the officer must be able to state that probable cause.
Stopping everyone just to see if they have a warrant is blatantly unconstitutional. Fortunately, as was noted, that doesn't seem to be within the scope of this ruling.
If you just want to start a fight, go somewhere else please.
edited 22nd Jun '16 2:45:24 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Bernie Sanders "It doesn't appear I'm going to be the nominee
No shit Sherlock.
![]()
They don't need to stop you. Just to notice you. Go on Google. Google your own name. My mom did it, and we found her name, and info on an old address just on the Google Search Page without entering any sites. God only knows what that site would have shown for a paying customer. If a civilian can get this with just your name and some cash, the police and other government officials could gather all sorts of information on you too. And just asking "does this person have a warrant" doesn't really need probable cause, since they're not searching you or your home. The only reason they don't do it, is because they don't have the resources available to do it for every random person out there. If they did, then they would.
The BEST way to protect people around you is preventative. Which is the reason they would do it if they had enough resources to check everyone.
For the same reason I tend to disagree with people going on tirades lecturing people about the dangers of looking for ideological purity over pragmatism: because no meaningful positive change in society happens when political institutions are confident in the support—which is to say not in danger of voting them out or overthrowing them—of the population.
edited 22nd Jun '16 3:23:53 PM by CaptainCapsase
I hope he does endorse Clinton come the convention, not endorsing just makes him come across as a sore looser, a reputation he's already partially earned by not conceding after Dc.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI'm not sure that "fear of being voted out" isn't half the problem.
That is _not_ saying I want no term limits. That's an observation of politician's self-interest of "keeping their job" (and any perks it comes with) can keep a politician voting in a particular way regardless of whether it's the best way and that it's the mechanism the Tea Party has been using to hold the GOP by the balls ("toe our line or we'll mount a primary challenge against you").
Stuff that makes me wonder if the ancient Athenians weren't onto something when they chose representatives by lottery.
@Kostya: What Clinton actually thinks and wants is largely irrelevant; if she doesn't have the support of political institutions, it's not going to happen, and political institutions default to the status quo except in cases where elite interests are threatened by, for example, the prospect of being removed from their position of privilege by the masses.
edited 22nd Jun '16 3:48:52 PM by CaptainCapsase
They were. Our current problem is dealing with people who want the job. That encourages folks to either lie outright or give us what we want instead of doing what needs done that we don't like. Not that going Athenian would be a solution. You'd invite the opposite of people doing bad jobs just to mess over the rest of us so we never want them back.
Captain Capsace, I don't really understand your view that all "political institutions" are the exact same and want things to stay as they are. Whether you'll admit it or not, there are people who want things to go right/stay as they were, and people who want things to change and move to the left. It's not some room full of people going "eeewwww, the masses want change! We must appease them so they don't kill us, but only a little bit."
IIRC, in Athens there was a one-term limit but don't quote me on that.
I think that in a country this size and this diverse you'd have to have some minimum qualification, like passing a civil service exam.
That whole "vote themselves a yearly pay raise" would have to go.
Ideally, I wish there were a way to de-fang the influence of political partisanship on the government altogether but I can't think of any that don't risk running foul of the First Amendment (right to assemble).
Also (and I think I've brought up this point in here before) we don't have a lever in the checks-and-balances system in the Constitution to remove a legislator like we do for the President and Supreme Court.
edited 22nd Jun '16 3:55:32 PM by Elle
No way you could get a Civil Service exam passed. While the vast majority of people won't even seriously think of running for office, cutting them off from it because of a test would reek to most people. For the same reasons almost everything else isn't test locked. How would you decide what goes on the test? There's no universal indicator for what makes a good leader, or a good state of a country. Everyone wants different things. Even experts usually have different opinions, even if it comes down to minutia.
The unelected branches of government all require heavy testing. The Foreign Service Officer Test, in fact, is one of the hardest tests you can take in the United States. The only reason elected officials don't require it is because it is assumed they are competant from "the genius of the people". Sorry to say, but the public as a whole are blithering idiots with ADD. Left or Right.
A professionalization of the political class isn't the worst idea in the world.

@Handle, Legal or no, IS Ps over here already routinely monitor "suspicious" activity and share it with law enforcement. Whatever you're searching on the internet, they know.
edited 22nd Jun '16 12:55:43 PM by carbon-mantis