Supreme Court decision of the day

[Taylor]

Just now, Jason said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/10/supreme-court-appears-willing-to-leave-obamacare-in-place-.html

After all that fear mongering too 

If this is true, it's good news for everyone. 

[Adam]

Just now, Taylor said:

If this is true, it's good news for everyone. 

except for people who hate obamacare of course

[St1ck]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/10/supreme-court-appears-willing-to-leave-obamacare-in-place-.html

After all that fear mongering too 

Can you really call it fear mongering when they are actively trying to fight it in the Supreme Court?

[Blarg]

As long as they remove the compulsory mandate that everyone must enroll in a insurance plan otherwise pay a penalty, then I really don't care. But the Obamacare ponzi scheme doesn't work unless it is raking in revenue that it doesn't pay out benefits for. 

[Jason]

1 minute ago, st1ckboy said:

Can you really call it fear mongering when they are actively trying to fight it in the Supreme Court?

It was fear mongering to say that the Barret appointment meant it was a for sure thing 

[Taylor]

4 minutes ago, Adam said:

except for people who hate obamacare of course

Upending our health care system in the middle of a pandemic would be bad for everyone. The Republicans had four years to implement Trump's imaginary beautiful new health care system, and they didn't.

[Taylor]

2 minutes ago, Blarg said:

As long as they remove the compulsory mandate that everyone must enroll in a insurance plan otherwise pay a penalty, then I really don't care. But the Obamacare ponzi scheme doesn't work unless it is raking in revenue that it doesn't pay out benefits for. 

They already have. Well, they kept the mandate in place, but the penalty is $0. Trump bragged about it during the first debate.

[St1ck]

2 minutes ago, Jason said:

It was fear mongering to say that the Barret appointment meant it was a for sure thing 

Not when she has frequently written as being opposed to it. 

[Taylor]

2 minutes ago, Jason said:

It was fear mongering to say that the Barret appointment meant it was a for sure thing 

I think there were plenty of Republicans who were hoping for that. The lawsuit was filed by 20 Republicans in Texas, with the specific intent of getting it elevated to the Supreme Court. 

[St1ck]

Just now, Taylor said:

They already have. Well, they kept the mandate in place, but the penalty is $0. Trump bragged about it during the first debate.

That's why it's in the SC now. They removed the mandate so they are saying the whole thing should be invalidated now. 

[gotbeer]

Tough one.  If it goes one way, you open up warrantless searches.  You go the other way, then if a cop tries to pull you over, just run home and lock yourself in till they get a warrant.

The Supreme Court Wrestles With 'Police Chase' That Wasn't

[Rico]

I would say this case doesn't qualify as a "Hot pursuit"

If a cop witnesses a crime he should attempt an arrest (or stop) right away.  Don't follow a person until they get home and flash your lights as they pull into their garage. 

Edited February 26, 2021 by Rico

[Rico]

Gorsuch added, they were especially concerned about the overuse of general warrants used by the British to justify a search for anything and everything. But today, "we live in a world in which everything has been criminalized," he said. "Some professors have even opined that there's not an American alive who hasn't committed a felony under some state law."

 

WHAT!

[Jason]

16 hours ago, gotbeer said:

Tough one.  If it goes one way, you open up warrantless searches.  You go the other way, then if a cop tries to pull you over, just run home and lock yourself in till they get a warrant.

The Supreme Court Wrestles With 'Police Chase' That Wasn't

Lol! Only the CHP would make a big deal about noise in rural California. Keeping the streets safe 

Quote

"Why doesn't it make sense," Gorsuch asked, " to retreat back to the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment," which "generally says that get to go into a home without a warrant [only] if the officer sees a violent action or something that's likely to lead to imminent violence.

This is what makes sense to me. I think there should be an immediate threat to a life before the cops go into a home without a warrant 

Edited February 26, 2021 by Jason

[gotbeer]

3 hours ago, Jason said:

Lol! Only the CHP would make a big deal about noise in rural California. Keeping the streets safe 

This is what makes sense to me. I think there should be an immediate threat to a life before the cops go into a home without a warrant 

Again, so if I was speeding, and they pull the blinkers on me.  Go home, lock myself in my house, until they get a warrant.  It makes sense, but it also makes no sense.

[Jason]

15 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

Again, so if I was speeding, and they pull the blinkers on me.  Go home, lock myself in my house, until they get a warrant.  It makes sense, but it also makes no sense.

Did you purposely evade the officer? If so, that changes things a bit but it still doesn’t justify going into someone’s home. Probably a good time to get back up and approach the situation with a different strategy to get compliance from the individual. There is no rush to apprehend at that point.

[arch stanton]

What makes sense to me is stopping the traffic stop. Unless it's clearly endangering someone just photo the plates and send the violation online. Minimize person-to-person interaction as much as possible 

[gotbeer]

13 minutes ago, Jason said:

Did you purposely evade the officer? If so, that changes things a bit but it still doesn’t justify going into someone’s home. Probably a good time to get back up and approach the situation with a different strategy to get compliance from the individual. There is no rush to apprehend at that point.

What if you are speeding and drunk.  But the officer only sees you speeding.  Run home, sober or get more drunk, wait for warrant.  

JMO, but if the warrant thing is upheld, it's going to change policing and how criminals act significantly.  It'll probably make policing more aggressive to prevent a run and hide situation.

[Tank]

7 hours ago, Rico said:

Gorsuch added, they were especially concerned about the overuse of general warrants used by the British to justify a search for anything and everything. But today, "we live in a world in which everything has been criminalized," he said. "Some professors have even opined that there's not an American alive who hasn't committed a felony under some state law."

 

WHAT!

he's right. true confession: i boosted a pair of really sweet brown-tinted sunglasses from united sporting goods in 1976. loss to the store = $11 + tax.

[Blarg]

Sinner, repent!

[Blarg]

BTW that's a misdemeanor.  The felony is hiding st1ckboy out in your garden shed evading parking ticket violations. 

[Tank]

38 minutes ago, Blarg said:

BTW that's a misdemeanor.  The felony is hiding st1ckboy out in your garden shed evading parking ticket violations. 

trust me, i don't want anyone else knowing about that. the toxic waste clean-up was difficult, but i think i managed to hose it all off into the sewer system. there are said to be certain properties of drakkar noir that will flush the poison right out of anything in the glendale sewer system. *fingers crossed*

[Tank]

41 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Sinner, repent!

already done!

at one point i was ready to go back and confess my sins to the store and make restitution, but unfortunately they folded up shop many years ago. i hope it wasn't because they were short $11 (+ tax).

[gotbeer]

4 minutes ago, Tank said:

already done!

at one point i was ready to go back and confess my sins to the store and make restitution, but unfortunately they folded up shop many years ago. i hope it wasn't because they were short $11 (+ tax).

It was. 

[Tank]

3 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

It was. 

crap!