Maybe we should just stick with 8 Justices. Starting with the Police Search ruling they have been on quite a roll of decisions I agree with...
CNN SCOTUS on TX Abortion Law
CNN SCOTUS on Presidential Powers - Immigration
CNN SCOTUS on Breathalyzers
CNN SCOTUS on TX Abortion Law
CNN SCOTUS on Presidential Powers - Immigration
CNN SCOTUS on Breathalyzers
8 comments:
The problem with the immigration decision is that the Supreme Court has no way of forcing the executive branch to do something it doesn't want to do. The executive branch, in this case, established a set or rules which implemented policy. In this case, the court told us that the rules were invalid but they left the policy unchanged. All that was really lost was the clarity the rules provided.
Bear in mind, the Supreme Court is comprised entirely of lawyers, and lawyers because of their training, find it very difficult to distinguish between form and substance.
--Hiram
Per this, it sounds like they do have a way to force the Executive branch.
"The one-sentence ruling, issued without comment or dissent, means that the programs will remain blocked from going into effect, and the issue will return to the lower court. It is exceedingly unlikely the programs will go into effect for the remainder of the Obama presidency. Obama, speaking at the White House, lamented the ruling."
The administration can just do what it wants to do without the formality of "programming".
--Hiram
If it's OK to stop someone without reasonable suspicion of committing a crime, why is it a problem to take their blood when you've already passed that threshold? I thought stopping criminals was the priority for you, John?
The problem the Obama administration had with respect to immigration is that it promulgated rules in ways that weren't fully compliant with statutory guidelines. The reason this argument doesn't attract much interest from judges is that rule are just a formalization of existing policy. Holding the rules invalid, doesn't invalidate the underlying policy it just makes the policy less clear. In this case, Texas will still have to deal with the consequences of the administration's actions, it's just without rules, Texas will just have more difficulty in doing it, because it won't have the clarity rules can provide.
--Hiram
If it's OK to stop someone without reasonable suspicion of committing a crime, why is it a problem to take their blood when you've already passed that threshold?
Because the burden has been ramped up between "reasonable suspicion", and "probable cause". A cop who stops someone on the street, because he thinks something is up, is justified in a decisionto frisk a guy, because the guy might have a weapon. It's minimally invasive, and addresses a specific and real security concern. A cop, or someone else in the vicinity could be harmed by the weapon. But that rationale doesn't apply to someone's blood, which unlike a weapon, is not dangerous to others.
--Hiram
Sean,
Hiram's last explanation seems sound, and I think the important part is the breathalyzer tests can be given immediately.
I believe the statute allows someone to refuse even a breathalyzer test, but it comes with a presumption of guilt. Somehow that doesn't seem right, either, but there are other ways to discern driver impairment.
Post a Comment