Soxbadger

Police state would be things like unreasonable searches, patriot act, criminals have no expectation of privacy, etc. Once some one is in jail, almost by definition, they are involved in a police state. Furthermore, what is the real goal here? To allow inmates to have more contraband? There is an important difference between being in jail and being free.

This is a gray area. Im pretty consistently pro-defendant, but its also very clear once you are in jail you lose a substantial amount of rights. That being said, even with this ruling, it does not mean that you cant sue if your rights are violated. It just merely states that having a policy of strip searching when having inmates enter into a jail, is not a per say rights violation.

Bush v. Gore is an outlier, Im not even sure if its considered precedent.

It was an appeal from summary judgment, that does not mean the Plaintiff cant win on the merits of the case. This is a really technical issue, but the standard for Summary Judgment is a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Thus when the trial court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff it was saying that there was no fact pattern that could have possibly existed that could have allowed this. Basically what the court is saying, is that having those systems are not per se violations of civil rights. What the court is not saying, is that in this specific case, the facts may show that he should have never been arrested in the first place and therefore his rights were violated.

States have all rights not restricted by the federal govt. Furthermore State Supreme Courts are the final say on the interpretation of the State's Constitution. Im sure there are cases where a State Supreme Court interprets basically the same language differently than the US Supreme Court.

Right now Kansas needs to know who the worst UK ft shooters are to foul smart.

Really calipari, you just let your guys do nothing on offense?

Kansas needs to shoot to win, not drive at Davis and hope for fouls.

If kansas can get it to a 3 possession game with about 3 minutes left anything can happen. Kentucky's shooting has drastically fallen off and they are stagnant in the half court.

Kentucky can be beaten, but KU needs to play 20 minutes of half court grind basketball. UK doesnt really love half court, they kind of just stand around.

Kentucky is maybe playing their best game of the season, so Im not sure any team can beat this. The entire idea would have been to try and let Kentucky beat you from the floor, but I think they are shooting something like 55%, so that is a problem. Also KU doesnt seem to have a lot of pure shooters who can just try and win with the 3. Kentucky is good, wish it wasnt going this way but even a team like Kansas looks like they are considerably less talented.

If Kentucky makes 3s this will get out of hand.

Kansas just trying to hang on at this point.

Here is Forbes list, they also have some odd results: http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/201...valuable-teams/

Yeah that ruling isnt really that bad. 1) It does not involve touching: In the instant case, the term does not include any touching of unclothed areas by the inspecting officer. There are no allegations that the detainees here were touched in any way as part of the searches 2) It was an appeal from summary judgment, the person could still win at trial.

I dont know what the rules are either, which is why I said I dont know if I disagree or not (I said I likely disagree, but that is because of the 5-4 rulings with regard to criminal rights, I generally am on the side of the 4). For all I know this changes nothing.

Female officers can enjoy a fine lady. Like I said, it would really depend on the ruling. Id at minimum want there to be some sort of "probable cause" that the person needs to be searched. Now that is going to be a pretty low threshold, but I still believe there must be something.

I likely dont agree with it (Id actually have to read the ruling and know what the ruling was to comment, and I dont really feel like doing that.) And Ive been "arrested" at least 5+ times, only 2 of them had any legitimacy, none of them resulted in a conviction. Ive never been strip searched. That being said, the cynic in me believes that strip searches of hot females will increase exponentially.

Good luck to Weber.

They may be relevant socially, its unclear at the moment. Its not like Zimmerman was a member of the Nazi party or a member of the KKK. For all we know this truly was a terrible terrible tragedy. Was race involved in the arrest? At first it seemed possible, but now as the facts come out, it appears the police wanted Zimmeran charged with manslaughter. Was race involved in the DA's decision not to prosecute? This may be possible, but not because the DA is racist, but instead because the DA perceives that the jury may be racist. Conviction percentages are the most important thing to prosecutors, many of them have a ridiculous rate of 90% or higher. They for the most part do not want to take risky cases because it generally is a lose lose situation. Furthermore, in this case, had the DA prosecuted and Zimmerman was found to be within his rights, the City/Municipality may have been liable to Zimmerman. So at the end of the day, I now believe the most likely thing that happened was that the DA didnt prosecute, because he didnt want to risk his job. Nothing sinister, just the sad state of criminal prosecution.

Thats not what y2hh is saying. (imo) Congress has powers that are enumerated in the constitution. The power to tax is recognized. Once the power to tax is recognized, then its not an additional power to be able to tax at 1% or 100%.

Well that just isnt fun. And the entire race issue glosses over the real issues of c&c, syg. In my opinion the racial issues have been latched onto because they are more sensational and sell more newspapers (or get more web clicks). Once again, this is about money, not about the truth.

And as I specifically explained, sometimes doing something in a slightly different manner, is a major deal at law. I admittedly do not know the text of the document, I havent done research into constitutional law. But to argue that the Supreme Court should read between the lines, is a really dangerous idea. Especially when you consider the fact that arguably 5 of the 9 judges are Conservative. Do I really want them reading between the lines in every case? Or do I prefer that they are bound by the actual language of the bill? I want everyone in the US to have access to health care. But just because I want something, doesnt mean that its always the best ruling.

Disagree completely. NBC is in the business of making money. Sensational stories get better ratings than non-sensational stories. You cant trust the news, they are not in the business of reporting facts, they are in the business of making money. If you want facts, wait for the trial.

Just so my bias is known, I would prefer Universal Health Care. I have no problem with the idea. But, you have to play by the rules to get the bills passed. And the reason that you need to be careful, is because yes, maybe today I want the Supreme Court to overlook the issues and not strike the law because I think it may be in the best interest of the United States. The problem is, that once you allow that precedent, there will be a day, when that precedent is used against an issue that I care about. Im not saying that ultimately the Supreme Court wont affirm the law, I am saying that when you do things like this, it gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to make a ruling based on ideology, instead of a ruling based on precedent and the law.