StrangeSox

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:14 AM) As far as is necessary. Like I've previously stated, which you seem to refuse to believe...but police don't actually go around looking for innocent people to arrest, strip search and throw in jail. I know this sounds crazy and insane...but they actually look for criminals, and in that wacky search, they sometimes get the wrong guy, and once in a while an innocent slips through the cracks. This is an unfortunate side effect of assholes existing in this world. Police often deal with the worst of the worst in terms of s***...so you and I won't have too. I know this sounds crazy and insane, but that's not at all anywhere close to anything I've been saying. In fact, it seems much more like an absurd caricature of why I think ever-increasing police state policies are abhorrent.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:09 AM) Ok, and here is the reason why this exists at jails...as I can give you a real world scenario. Gangs are not as stupid as people think... "Here's what you have to do to become a member...you have a clean record...so get arrested for a 'minor' offense...being that you have no prior records, they won't search you...so what you're going to do is sneak this shank into the jail...after you're in, you're to give it to this person, who will then slay rival gang leader X. Upon his death, you're a full member. They'll never know it was you, either. After you're released, come back to us. TYVM." There are pretty good reasons why jails strip search people...reasons you haven't thought of, or think would never happen. First, this "rival gang leader" would already be held in separate custody from general population because he's a known gang leader. Second, is this strip search policy common at every jail? If not, why doesn't this scenario of yours happen all the time?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:06 AM) The logic leap you just made went from government granted POLICE powers to low paid TSA agents without training? Really? It doesn't go that far...it's police powers versus not. TSA agents have training and are federal employees. But the question was more about "how far do you want to allow police measures to go in the name of security?"

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:05 AM) Yes I am. What I am not OK with is that the state f***ed up by not showing he paid the fines. That is who he should be suing - the people who caused the mess. The rule for searching, if the jail feels it is necessary for security of themselves and inmates, I am OK with. I find this embrace of a police state pretty off-putting. These are not people convicted of a crime and heading to prison. Fair enough.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:01 AM) You are talking in circles. The fact that the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, does not mean that it can do ANYTHING IT WANTS in the field of commerce. In fact, I am sure the court would find that the federal government can indeed regulate health insurance. No one is even debating that, except you and the straw man. No one is saying that, not me nor the straw man. You're still talking past the point. States do not have unlimited rights. It's a pretty simple question. What sort of power is "compelling commerce"?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:57 AM) Ehh, you're walking a grey area here. That article is about being initiated into a public jail with shared cells...probably community sized. They do this because they HAVE too at jails like this, for the reasons I've previously stated. If they sneak a weapon into there and kill someone, the officer that sent them in is at fault. Breyer covers this in his dissent--it's an exceedingly rare scenario that anyone you wouldn't have reasonable suspicion of in the first place tried to sneak a weapon in and that it wouldn't have been caught by a pat-down. How far does this logic take us? Is no security risk anywhere acceptable? Strip searches at airports?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:57 AM) I am now OK with this court finding, and the story makes more sense to me as a whole. The guy was searched twice because he was in jail twice. For the minor offense of an unpaid fine, which it turns out was actually paid. So, despite the fact that he was actually wrongly arrested and that the jailers had no reason to suspect he presented any danger, you're still ok with him being strip searched?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:58 AM) This is now more clear to me - this was not a police department doing the searching. It was a county sherriff's facility - a jail. Therefore, no, the court finding does NOT allow for police to strip search just anyone. In fact, it doesn't really establish precedent for that scenario it all, it avoids it. Perhaps I'm being sloppy with "police" vs. "jailer," but the point remains that anyone can be strip searched without reason after being detained for a minor offense such as an unpaid traffic ticket. I'm finding it hard to believe you guys actually think that's a good thing.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:53 AM) States can definitely regulate commerce - intrastate, and in some cases even interstate, unless the federal government chooses to intercede. If a state mandates its own citizens to buy a product, that is not interstate commerce. But if it's just commerce regulation, intra- or inter-, then it'd be Federally Constitutional since the Federal government can regulate interstate commerce and health insurance qualifies (at least no one is making an argument to the contrary that I've seen, and it certainly didn't seem to be a central element of Clement's arguments). If it is ok for states but not ok for Feds, it must be some other power being exercised.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:51 AM) Ridiculous. You think that police departments are going to WANT to strip and cavity search everyone they detain? You cannot really think that would be the case, it makes no sense at all. Aside from the fact that no one wants to do that anyway, the reality is also that it is time-consuming, and opens you up to litigation (and yes, even with this case in place, litigation can still occur). Your paranoia here has clouded any sense of logic. Litigation for what? Not 4th and 14th amendment violations. It's not that every police department will do this, it's that they can. I believe you should have a Constitutionally protected right to privacy from being strip searched after being detained for any offense, no matter how minor.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:49 AM) First, it doesn't say that "this happens to every incoming detainee at the two jails", unless I misread it (I did not read every opinion on the case, I only read articles quoting it). Because that would be factually false. I am sure the police department does not strip search everyone they detain. well, pretty sure anyway. this is the opening paragraph of the opinion: I'm not OK with this being an acceptable policy for police. It's a huge invasion of privacy.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:43 AM) About your last line, your question doesn't really make any sense. The states have whatever power they want, outside of those enumerated to the federation in the Constitution and existing federal law. Which you then answer with your last sentence - their own constitutions. Which is what I said. What power does a mandate exercise? That's the question I'm asking. If it isn't Federally Constitutional, it isn't the power to regulate interstate commerce or N&P to do so.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:43 AM) As for the vote, I always had the impression that was not really a vote, more of an airing of initial positions, before they all go heads-down to study. This article does make it seem more formal than that, so I am a bit surprised. It's not binding but they need to get going on the opinions soon, and you can't determine who's writing the opinion until you know what positions people are taking.

Preliminary google results seem to point towards a potential conflict between "compelling commerce" and "police powers" and what, exactly, the mandate falls under. More on this story as it develops...

I'm sure it's been discussed in depth, I'm trying to out-source some google work!

The court's opinion states that this happens to every incoming detainee at the two jails regardless of offense. Yes, there's a security issue, but that needs to be balanced against other concerns. If there's a good reason to search a particular person based on the nature of the arrest and/or previous history, by all means. But this ruling makes it ok for the police to strip search anyone. This measure goes way, way too far in my opinion. It's not that everyone arrested will be strip searched, it's that they can be for no reason at all and they have no recourse.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:23 AM) You are joking, right? There is no "initial" vote, as I understand it. This isn't like a polling system of that type. It will take weeks or months before these justices truly solidify their positions. They held a preliminary vote on Friday. It takes months to research and write the opinions and determine if they are going to write a separate dissent or concurrence. I'm asking what power the state has that the Federal government doesn't that justifies the mandate. State power is still governed by their own constitutions.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:21 AM) It was the fault of the state, etc...who knows. But on the computer it read he had an outstanding warrant. No cop in existence is going to say oh look, an obscure receipt, I guess I'll just ignore this warrant because it shouldn't exist. He can't assume to know that. The person in question should be pissed off at the state that never removed his warrant, not the cop that didn't believe some receipt...I mean, that's just ridiculous. But this guy who was arrested for an unpaid fine (incorrectly or not) can be strip-searched and it's not an unreasonable search. That's pretty terrible.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 03:06 PM) 2) It was an appeal from summary judgment, the person could still win at trial. Not on the Constitutional claims since the SC has ruled they're not valid, right?

Ezra Klein is quite pissed off by Douthat's latest column: via

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 01:11 PM) Right-o, because "getting arrested" is something that happens to us law abiding citizens every day. I just wanted to point out that the person at the center of this case was, in fact, a law abiding citizen who had done nothing wrong. Thanks to a computer glitch, he was flagged as not having paid a fine seven years previously and so a bench warrant was issued. He had paid the fine. Police-State Logic

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 08:01 AM) And, again, this is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. State and Federal powers are just not comprarable enough for this to be a comparison useful in any way. A separate thought: what powers do the states possess that make the mandate ok that the federal government doesn't possess?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 08:33 AM) Not that it actually matters, but here's the President's comments on the Court case, yesterday. My guess is word got leaked that the initial vote did not go well for the Administration.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 08:01 AM) And, again, this is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. State and Federal powers are just not comprarable enough for this to be a comparison useful in any way. Ok. What did you think of the rest of that lengthy article that wasn't those two sentences?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 05:15 PM) This is what I mean. When they "might" be able to pass it, the "blue dog" Democrats rise up and vote no...but when they have no chance at passing it, there are no "blue dogs" to be found. Just seems like part of the show, while us voters actually argue about it...they pretend to do so publicly, and laugh privately at 30,000$ per plate dinners... If the Senate wasn't dysfunctional, bills that receive a majority of the votes would pass. That conservatives who caucused (D) before blocked repealing these subsidies doesn't provide cover for those who block it now or our broken system.