The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Breyer joined the facists

Facists? assuming you meant "fascists" isn't that backwards? I thought a fascist believed in a very strong central government and usually the so-called "conservatives" are putting limits on government power in most of their rulings, no?

or has the practice of law also devolved to name-calling because actually putting together a coherent series of logical sentences is just too hard these days?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Surprising 5 - 4 decision today on whether police can take DNA swabs from suspects who have just been arrested.

Kennedy: "they can fingerprint suspects already and that's fine; so a DNA swab is similarly instrusive and invasive, that's fine too."
Joined by Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and ... Breyer?

Dissent from ... Scalia? Joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg.

Maybe it's just me, but an arrest seems like probable cause in order to obtain a search warrant. So long as that process is completed, where's the issue?

 

[sagard]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Facists? assuming you meant "fascists" isn't that backwards? I thought a fascist believed in a very strong central government and usually the so-called "conservatives" are putting limits on government power in most of their rulings, no?

or has the practice of law also devolved to name-calling because actually putting together a coherent series of logical sentences is just too hard these days?

The Republicans believe with all their hearts in a strong central government. A conservative wouldn't, but our Republicans do. They just don't like it nearly as much with Obama in office. But when they win in 2016, they will blame Obama for all of societies ills and ratchet up government in places they like.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Also, what's wrong with who concurs and who offers dissent? I'd rather not see "party line votes" all the time, as it shows they're not trying to "legislate from the bench" and instead offer insight based upon interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[unofan]

Facists? assuming you meant "fascists" isn't that backwards? I thought a fascist believed in a very strong central government and usually the so-called "conservatives" are putting limits on government power in most of their rulings, no?

or has the practice of law also devolved to name-calling because actually putting together a coherent series of logical sentences is just too hard these days?

Someone took that a bit too seriously - the more trollish the headline at fark, the more likely itll get greenlit. Me thinks ye doth protest too much.

But, to nevertheless answer your question, in the context of criminal law the conservative wing tends to be extremely pro-state and anti-defendant. Alito is the worst; I've yet to see him vote against the state in a criminal matter. He's even had some lone dissents - which are fairly rare these days.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

in the context of criminal law the conservative wing tends to be extremely pro-state and anti-defendant. Alito is the worst; I've yet to see him vote against the state in a criminal matter. He's even had some lone dissents - which are fairly rare these days.

Accepting your definition in good faith, then it seems that Scalia would not be considered part of the "conservative wing" when it comes to criminal law, based on the body of his work throughout his time with the Supremes; he'd be "moderate" along with Roberts and Kennedy. We'd have Alito and Thomas as the two "criminal law" conservatives, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, and apparently now Breyer as "moderates" and the Three Sisters as "liberals."

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Maybe it's just me, but an arrest seems like probable cause in order to obtain a search warrant. So long as that process is completed, where's the issue?

Wow, are you serious? I have to side with Scalia on this one. You are walking down the street, minding your own business, passing a tavern, and suddenly a bar fight from inside spills out into the street and you are caught up in the scrum and taken to central booking so that the police can sort out the mess there. That's "probable cause" to put your DNA into the national database forever?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Wow, are you serious? I have to side with Scalia on this one. You are walking down the street, minding your own business, passing a tavern, and suddenly a bar fight from inside spills out into the street and you are caught up in the scrum and taken to central booking so that the police can sort out the mess there. That's "probable cause" to put your DNA into the national database forever?

It was enough to put your fingerprints in the system forever. It's inevitable your DNA is going to be in there. Welcome to the 21st century.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Wow, are you serious? I have to side with Scalia on this one. You are walking down the street, minding your own business, passing a tavern, and suddenly a bar fight from inside spills out into the street and you are caught up in the scrum and taken to central booking so that the police can sort out the mess there. That's "probable cause" to put your DNA into the national database forever?

Is being at the scene of the crime and being caught in the scrum enough evidence to obtain any sorts of warrants for the arrest?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

It was enough to put your fingerprints in the system forever. It's inevitable your DNA is going to be in there. Welcome to the 21st century.

That's not a good enough reason to take it. Obviously since I've never been under arrest I don't know the arraignment process, nor how a prisoner's rights (similar to those determined by Miranda v. Arizona) are handled. Also, in the state of Maryland (where this case was handled), there are safeguards in place where such evidence taken must be destroyed upon the charge/conviction being dismissed, which leads me to believe that if this case were to come up in another state, that it may be handled differently.

 

[unofan]

Wow, are you serious? I have to side with Scalia on this one. You are walking down the street, minding your own business, passing a tavern, and suddenly a bar fight from inside spills out into the street and you are caught up in the scrum and taken to central booking so that the police can sort out the mess there. That's "probable cause" to put your DNA into the national database forever?

The issue as Scalia put it is this law specifically affects those who are arrested but later acquitted/released without charges. All 50 states collect DNA from at least some convicts. Thus there's no need to collect dna at the time of arrest from guilty parties since you can get it post-conviction without issue. That the guy here was ultimately convicted just makes the law less necessary, since they could have gotten his dna at that time without issue.

Fingerprints/photos are also used ostensibly for purely identification purposes at the time of booking. That they might also have an ancillary investigatory purpose is just a benefit. That's not the case here- his dna wasn't taken until post-arraignment. It wasn't tested for weeks. It clearly wasn't taken for identification but solely to compare to cold cases. The police did not have a warrant, and there was no other reason to take his dna at that time except that he had been arrested.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

The issue as Scalia put it is this law specifically affects those who are arrested but later acquitted/released without charges. All 50 states collect DNA from at least some convicts. Thus there's no need to collect dna at the time of arrest from guilty parties since you can get it post-conviction without issue.

Fingerprints/photos are also used ostensibly for purely identification purposes at the time of booking. That they might also have an ancillary investigatory purpose is just a benefit. That's not the case here- his dna wasn't taken until post-arraignment. It wasn't tested for weeks. It clearly wasn't taken for identification but solely to compare to cold cases. The police did not have a warrant, and there was no other reason to take his dna at that time except that he had been arrested.

Perhaps the issue shouldn't be about use of evidence but rather statute of limitations. I assume there is none in Maryland?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Perhaps the issue shouldn't be about use of evidence but rather statute of limitations.

No that's not the issue.

For many jobs, you have to get finger-printed as part of the application process. Just about any job in the securities industry, for example, requires that your fingerprints be taken and kept on file. Any branch of the service is the same way, I think.

Fingerprintes are used as unique identifiers, it's a way of proving you are who you say you are. Once taken, they remain on file forever. We've all pretty much come to accept it as the status quo.

The "issue" was whether storing someone's DNA cheek swab indefinitely, merely because they were picked up by the police, would be equally acceptable. Many people would find that an unreasonable search since merely being picked up by the police in itself would not constitute sufficient "probable cause" (remember those two unforunate teens whose pictures were plastered all over the front page of the NY Post the day after the Boston Marathon bombing, who were completely innocent of any wrongoing, merely because they were carrying a backpack?).

Our fingerprints are not "private" because we leave them lying around whenever we touch something. Apparently our DNA is no longer private either.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

No that's not the issue.

For many jobs, you have to get finger-printed as part of the application process. Just about anything in the securities industry, for example, requires that your fingerprints be kept on file. Any branch of the service is the same way, I think.

Fingerprintes are used as unique identifiers, it's a way of proving you are who you say you are. Once taken, they remain on file forever. We've all pretty much come to accept it as the status quo.

The "issue" was whether storing someone's DNA cheek swab indefinitely, merely because they were picked up by the police, would be equally acceptable. Many people would find that an unreasonable search since merely being picked up by the police in itself would not constitute sufficient "probable cause" (remember those two unforunate teens whose pictures were plastered all over the front page of the NY Post the day after the Boston Marathon bombing, who were completely innocent of any wrongoing, merely because they were carrying a backpack?).

Our fingerprints are not "private" because we leave them lying around whenever we touch something. Apparently our DNA is no longer private either.

I don't see the difference between the two myself. We leave our DNA all over the place just like our fingerprints.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Our fingerprints are not "private" because we leave them lying around whenever we touch something. Apparently our DNA is no longer private either.

You're trying to tell me that your hair doesn't ever fall out (assuming you have any, maybe you completely shave everything; I don't know)? Or you don't ever get phlegm caught up and have to spit it out? How about dead skin cells that fall off the body to create what is effectively known as "dust"?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

We leave our DNA all over the place just like our fingerprints.

Speak for yourself Travis Henry.

 

[unofan]

SCOTUS splits the baby on DNA. Isolating naturally occurring genes is not patentable, but artificially created DNA is patentable. Unanimous decision, with Scalia concurring in part and in the judgement.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

SCOTUS splits the baby on DNA. Isolating naturally occurring genes is not patentable, but artificially created DNA is patentable. Unanimous decision, with Scalia concurring in part and in the judgement.

Isn't the technology used to isolate the genes patentable but not the genes themselves?

 

[unofan]

Isn't the technology used to isolate the genes patentable but not the genes themselves?

Yes. Should've said isolated rather than isolating. But give me a break, I was up till 12:30 watching game 1 last night. Reading patent decisions first thing in the morning after that is cruel and unusual punishment

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Yes. Should've said isolated rather than isolating.

Thank you.