Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Shows how much you know S&F has been explicitly ruled to be constitutional by the US Supreme Court. And no federal district court order changes that. Moreover, the federal court order, which applied to S&F as it was being applied in certain instances, was, apart from getting the legal analysis wrong in more than one way (for instance, the district court judge used a disparate impact analysis for the 14th Amendment equal protection claim/racial discrimination, but the Supreme Court made clear that the test for such claims is intentional discrimination, not disparate impact), but, more to the point, the ruling of a sole district court judge is not binding. Its rather easy for a future administration to have that ruling tossed aside. I repeat: it will happen under the circumstances listed.
Bloomberg before leaving appealed, but De Blasio withdrew appeal. The city is now following the terms of a an agreement with feds. See below. I don't know what the heck your talking about.
Bloomberg before leaving appealed, but De Blasio withdrew appeal. The city is now following the terms of a an agreement with feds. See below. I don't know what the heck your talking about.
You don't have a clue. The fact that de Blasio withdrew the appeal doesn't change what I wrote. The order, as it is a district court order and, so, not binding precedent, can be easily collaterally attacked by a future administration. All de Blasio's withdrawal of the appeal means is that the time for appeal has since passed. But appealing an order of a federal district court order (the lowest of the Article III courts) is NOT the only way to have that order invalidated by a future administration.
Note: by not being binding precedent, that means that other federal district court judges are not bound by the judge's order in question, among other realities.
You don't have a clue. The fact that de Blasio withdrew the appeal doesn't change what I wrote. The order, as it is a district court order and, so, not binding precedent, can be easily collaterally attacked by a future administration. All de Blasio's withdrawal of the appeal means is that the time for appeal has since passed. But appealing an order of a federal district court order (the lowest of the Article III courts) is NOT the only way to have that order invalidated by a future administration.
I understand Terry v Ohio, etc.
No one is going to take the political hit of overturning that. NYC ethnic politics are too ingrained. Again I repeat this is a dead horse.
No one is going to take the political hit of overturning that. NYC ethnic politics are too ingrained. Again I repeat this is a dead horse.
It would be easy to. By the time de Blasio is finished with his disastrous experiment, most of the City will be begging for a return to policing practices a la Giuliani and Bloomberg.
It would be easy to. By the time de Blasio is finished with his disastrous experiment, most of the City will be begging for a return to policing practices a la Giuliani and Bloomberg.
Also, if you understand Terry v. Ohio, you should've never stated that S&F is unconstitutional.
It's legalese/legal interpretation. S&F in general is a long standing police practice that's always been around. But often when people refer to S&F now they are referring to the indiscriminate use that was applied by Bloombucks/Kelly. Terry V Ohio deems S&F constitutional but under reasonable suspicion that the person being frisked has committed a crime or is about to commit one.
It's legalese/legal interpretation. S&F in general is a long standing police practice. But often when people refer to S&F now they are referring to the indiscriminate use that was applied by Bloombucks/Kelly. Terry V Ohio deems S&F constituional but under reasonable suspicion that the person being frisked has committed a crime or is about to commit one.
Fair enough. Still, that doesn't change the fact that the ruling that held how S&F (or certain aspects of how it was applied) was applied by Bloomberg as unconstitutional is not binding precedent and can easily be attacked/overturned. And, note, the 2nd Cir. Court of Appeals (if future attempts to get past the judge's order in question here are appealed) is known as a very tough, law and order court when it comes to policing. This is the same court that held that police officers did not violate the constitution when stopping and questioning all of the black men they saw following a rape report in an upstate college town, even tough most of the men they stopped clearly didn't fit the description of the suspect.
I like DeBlasio but hate his stance in combating crime. He's the most passive-aggessive mayor this city has ever known
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
S&F has been explicitly ruled to be constitutional by the US Supreme Court. And no federal district court order changes that. Moreover, the federal court order, which applied to S&F as it was being applied in certain instances, was, apart from getting the legal analysis wrong in more than one way (for instance, the district court judge used a disparate impact analysis for the 14th Amendment equal protection claim/racial discrimination, but the Supreme Court made clear that the test for such claims is intentional discrimination, not disparate impact), but, more to the point, the ruling of a sole district court judge is not binding. Its rather easy for a future administration to have that ruling tossed aside. I repeat: it will happen under the circumstances listed.
