• some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    6 months ago

    Canada put out a warning against carrying large sums of cash when vacationing in USA because of this. Fucking insane that we allow this.

  • henfredemars@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    6 months ago

    No worries people. The Supreme Court is just formalizing the notion that they aren’t subject to consequences. This will surely improve the public perception of cops.

    • irreticent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      This will surely improve the public perception of cops.

      And the public perception of the supreme court. I’ve never had such a low opinion of them as I have had lately.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    This is the supreme court rewriting the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments against search, seizure and due process.

    There should be additional checks and balances on supreme court decisions such as their decisions not taking effect unless approved by congress.

    • drdiddlybadger@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah it’s pretty disheartening when SCOTUS makes a bat shit ruling and we are all supposed to just abide by it. If they have a heinous ruling they should be thrown out over it.

    • Alexstarfire@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      I don’t see how that would work if they are making decisions on things congress has passed. Congress could then choose to ignore the decision they make leaving the SC pretty useless.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        the point is to make elected officials take credit for supreme court rulings and responsibility for them. It could easily be setup as “either the senate or house must confirm a supreme court ruling for it to take effect”. This way every supreme court ruling requires political capital to enforce. If the supreme court deviates too far into the unpopular they will simply be stalled.

  • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    6 months ago

    If only those 6 conservative justices would have their property seized by police. Doesn’t matter if they didn’t do anything; never did.

    • derf82@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Two of them actually put their name to an opinion wanting it to be challenged in general. Unfortunately, this case didn’t directly challenge the practice, just a very narrow issue if rather or not a preliminary hearing was required. With the 3 dissenting liberals, that’s 5 votes to eliminate it.

    • ironhydroxide
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Yes, but you see, the legislators need the police to protect them from the unwashed masses. But the legislators don’t want to have to pay the police themselves, so how do they compensate the police for the extra protection? By leaving asset forfeiture in place; Legislators don’t have to do anything, and get benefit from it. Police only have to claim your property is guilty of being involved in a crime, and boom, it’s theirs now.

    • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      It doesn’t really. The ruling is blatantly contradictory to both the spirit and the word of the Bill of Rights. Under the US Constitution, it’s an invalid ruling. The problem needs to be attacked by removing judges that brazenly undermine the US Constitution.

    • Techognito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      “You are free to do what we, the rich and powerful, tells you”

      “You shall own nothing and be happy”

      don’t know where these quotes came from, but they fit all too well the situation in the USA

      • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        This is literally the thieving rich taking what they can before they fuck off to their private islands or bunkers or whatever they have before the whole thing comes tumbling down. Their plan is to wait it out until the poors are dead and then reemerge to reclaim the world and shape it in their image.

        Now, I know how crazy that sounds, but they know that things can’t keep going like this forever. Something has to give, eventually

  • masquenox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    6 months ago

    I have to constantly remind the white supremacists in my country (South Africa) that the only reason the US isn’t ranked higher than South Africa in those silly “corruption indexes” rich people’s media loves so much is because the stuff that gets called corruption over here is perfectly legal in the US.

    In South Africa, pigs stealing your stuff is thoroughly illegal - not that this stops SA pigs, of course - while it’s been perfectly legalized in the US.

    And it can’t be corrupt if it’s perfectly legal, right?

    • Notyou@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      And it can’t be corrupt if it’s perfectly legal, right?

      Well that is how they made bribery legal as long as you use PACs.

    • notaviking@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah corruption is corruption, be it the US government or the SA Government. Problem in both is how it becomes entrenched and keeping themselves elected through blind following and populists rhetoric. Also the ANC needs the white supremacist, their enemy or WMC/snowball if we are talking Orwellian, to distract from their base while buying their votes with t-shirts.

      At least here in SA our courts have not yet been politicised too much, even though some politicians try, cough cough Zuma cough. At least certain institutions have stood their ground to government interference, like the courts or reserve bank for example.

  • nul9o9@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    6 months ago

    Surprisingly, there is a little bit more to this. Here is a video that goes over some of the Justices’ opinions. Again surprisingly that bitch ass Thomas might have something postive to contribute by saying that CAF could be unconstitutional the way it’s being used now.