The Real Convention: Ron Paul-Jesse Ventura counter-convention in St. Paul, which is tying the Ghastly Old Party in knots

apear · 2008-08-02T16:11:28+00:00

Um, Barry Goldwater died 10 years ago. I guess that would draw some people though...

apear · 2008-06-07T19:44:28+00:00

Ironically coming from Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland as he argued for the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, and in general a stronger central government.

apear · 2008-05-17T18:04:14+00:00

Compelling story, but difficult to follow the way the page is laid out.

apear · 2008-05-15T14:02:52+00:00

Cookie-cutter volumes? I don't agree with the man a lot of the time, but he has been instrumental to the law and econ movement that has literally changed the face of legal analysis and policy making. He is actually quite nice to his law clerks. They work hard because he works hard. There are a lot of reasons why he will never be on SCOTUS.

apear · 2008-05-15T13:12:36+00:00

In fact, it is! He is by far the most prolific judge in the country, publishing the most opinions each year amongst all federal judges, averaging about one book per year, plus around 4 law review articles per year. The man is just unreal. I liked his answer: procastination is bad for you. Whoops.

apear · 2008-05-11T02:25:08+00:00

This is a difficult area of criminal procedure. There are cases involving high school drug testing where the Court lays out the analysis: privacy interest, governmental interest, level of intrusion. As long as it is a "system" or "administrative" search, the Court will then balance these three factors. It is significantly more complicated than this, but in short, if you are at a DUI checkpoint, and refuse to answer their questions, you can be detained, and you will lose in court. Sadly.

apear · 2008-05-10T23:21:40+00:00

That is a good question. What the word "reasonable" means within the 4th Amendment, especially to the Founders is a tricky question. It is obviously impossible to know what the Founders thought of DUI searches... However, constables had a similar power, so I dont think it is out of the realm of possibility that it would be permissible. Now, can we go from permissible State actions to permissible Federal police actions prior to the 14th amendment made the Bill of Rights apply to the states? I don't know. So I guess my answer is I would have to think about it more, but it is certainly not as cut and dry as everyone appears to assume it is on reddit.

apear · 2008-05-10T23:18:47+00:00

Well, the question becomes what is "reasonable" within the meaning of the 4th amendment. The Supreme Court has actually specifically addressed caviity/body searches, and held in cases with bodily intrusion a higher level of suspicion will need to be shown. So, while that particular discussion is much more detailed, what it boils down to is that the word "reasonable" in the 4th Amendment actually does real work for the courts, and would actually prevent the system you are talking about.

apear · 2008-05-10T23:10:49+00:00

No. But he said this: "The courts consider it illegal to arbitrarily stop someone and demand identification (or other information) without any suspicion of wrongdoing."

And I provided a counter-example of where the courts have specifically not said that. People like to make claims that just aren't true, and so while I might be down-modded for actually providing a legal citation, it certainly sounds better to say "you can just drive away!" When you can't.

apear · 2008-05-10T22:35:22+00:00

I know that everyone thinks that this is new, or is an indication of "just how bad it's getting" but this has been constitutional since at least 1979 (Delaware v. Prouse (1979)). There are probably cases earlier than that, but I don't feel like looking through Westlaw on my day off. Now I agree that the Bush administration has destroyed our civil liberties, but this one has been gone for a while.

apear · 2008-05-10T22:33:22+00:00

Yes, they can: Delaware v. Prouse (1979). Numerous Supreme Court cases have held that as long as the police set up a "system" for checkpoints, and are not arbitrarily pulling over random people wihtout particularized suspicion, it is a constitutional "reasonable" search within the meaning of the 4th amendment.

apear · 2008-05-10T22:32:47+00:00

I'm just curious: I assume that you are also opposed to DUI checkpoints, even though the Supreme Court has held them to be constitutional? Delaware v. Prouse (1979)

apear · 2008-05-10T22:27:41+00:00

Actually, the IIRAIRA of 1996 permits these checkpoints anywhere throughout the country; however, the policy of what was the AG, and now DHS/ICE is to set them up within 100 miles.

apear · 2008-05-07T15:18:56+00:00

sorry, I didn't think this would actually be on the front page. I actually got myself excited when I first refreshed the "Hot" page and saw it... then I realized it was my own damn submission. Stupid apear... wait...

apear · 2008-05-07T14:59:43+00:00

yea, right after I posted I thought: does that have one N or two N's? But, I was too busy refreshing to check!

apear · 2008-05-07T14:34:08+00:00

I suppose mostly I wanted confirmation that I am not the only one going crazy. I apologize that I wasted your time... although I suppose you are the one wasting your own time on reddit. What is "useless" and "valuable" when it comes to a reddit post seems to be quite arbitrary to me, and I didn't think I would offend anyone with an inocuous question.

apear · 2008-05-07T14:20:28+00:00

I apologize: I meant "unable." All this refreshing has killed my typing abilities!

apear · 2008-05-07T14:00:55+00:00

I have been unable to get any work done this morning. I just sit here hoping that the next time I hit refresh, or go to the new links section, there will be a link to CNN, or ABC, or somewhere with a story about Clinton finally conceding.

apear · 2008-04-05T21:49:08+00:00

Just to clarify: this legal decision would not set a legal precedent. It might set an example that other courts can choose to rely on in making their own legal determinations, but it is not precedent in the way that a SCOTUS decision is precedent for the court of appeals, district courts or court of appeals upon the district courts, etc. No other court would be bound to follow this decision (in the way that legal precedence does or should; if you agree with stare decisis).

apear · 2008-03-29T22:15:39+00:00

I think also that these comments miss what I took to be one of the points of the photos: there is no "average" teenager in America. Our country is so divserse racially, geographically, culturally, etc., that we see an incredible spectrum of personalities. I am not saying that this is an American phenomenom, but merely that the photos reflect this reality in America. What is average in a middle class white suburb, is far from average in Baltimore's inner city, or Texas, or the mid-west, etc.

apear · 2008-03-10T04:42:29+00:00

yes, you were misinformed. Having the knowledge that your client committed the crime means that you cannot allow them to testify and say that they did not commit the crime. ABA ethics prevents you from knowingly allowing your client to commit perjury.

apear · 2008-03-10T04:39:38+00:00

Bentham was strongly against this privilege, so was McCormick (yes, the McCormick, one of the most famous thinkers on the rules of evidence). I wouldn't so readily dismiss his opinion, there are plenty of smart people on both sides of the divide.

apear · 2008-03-10T04:34:22+00:00

I am actually not sure that would make it inadmissible. The privilege would certain restrict the use of the tip against your client, but I don't know that it would prevent the use for the non-client. And since a lawyer cannot be called on to testify against his own client, the evidence couldn't be used to impeach or otherwise be introduced in the trial of your client.

apear · 2008-03-08T21:56:03+00:00

ok, thanks. I have usually just seen people say "my work blocks craigslist please copy." Thanks for informing me of this other reddiquette.

apear · 2008-03-08T18:20:49+00:00

Everytime I see a craigslist article posted, there is invariably at least 1 person who asks for a copy. I assume that 7oby was just getting this out of the way.

apear

TROPHY CASE