Latest Breaking News

cstanleytech

(28,191 posts)

28. The way I am reading (and I could be mistaken)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 04:11 PM

Jun 2012

is the reason the court largely ruled the way that they did including Ginsberg is so as to leave intact the ability for law enforcement agencies to react, the ruling however doesnt appear to grant them immunity from beating a suspect, planting evidence or any other violation of the constitution.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

58 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court backs Secret Service arrest of man confronting Cheney [View all] villager Jun 2012 OP

Pretty obvious that they could arrest him. FBaggins Jun 2012 #1

Glad to know you support retaliatory arrests.... villager Jun 2012 #2

Odd... I missed where I said that. FBaggins Jun 2012 #4

I didn't. It was in your agreement with the verdict. If you read the SC's rationale for said verdict villager Jun 2012 #7

You mean the unanimous verdict? FBaggins Jun 2012 #10

Sadly, I also noted it was unanimous. villager Jun 2012 #13

Ginsburg and Breyer voted with the others so do you claim that they support retaliatory arrests? cstanleytech Jun 2012 #12

No surprise here Kelvin Mace Jun 2012 #3

FACTS: elleng Jun 2012 #8

You pretty much confirm my point Kelvin Mace Jun 2012 #11

+1 villager Jun 2012 #14

This matter is NOT ABOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, elleng Jun 2012 #18

No, Thomas made that clear Kelvin Mace Jun 2012 #23

'One agent, elleng Jun 2012 #25

OK, now we have conflicting accounts Kelvin Mace Jun 2012 #39

Yup, that confirms it Canuckistanian Jun 2012 #37

The probable cause was established before the arrest. NutmegYankee Jun 2012 #38

There should be know such thing Kelvin Mace Jun 2012 #40

They did not. NutmegYankee Jun 2012 #45

Thomas deliberately ignored the fact Kelvin Mace Jun 2012 #51

Your example lacks a hold on reality. NutmegYankee Jun 2012 #55

"allegedly pushed or touched him on the shoulder" ---which was it? wordpix Jun 2012 #27

If in fact he touched the VP, the 1st amendment does not protect it. Not even 24601 Jun 2012 #32

Right all around, 246. elleng Jun 2012 #35

If such an assault and/or battery occurred Kelvin Mace Jun 2012 #41

No charges being filed doesnt mean they dont have grounds techincally for an arrest. cstanleytech Jun 2012 #15

This situation would not stink Kelvin Mace Jun 2012 #24

The way I am reading (and I could be mistaken) cstanleytech Jun 2012 #28

Maybe, elleng Jun 2012 #31

Hmmmm Kelvin Mace Jun 2012 #42

Wasnt that ruling based around the whole "they arent citizens so they have no rights" excuse? If so cstanleytech Jun 2012 #46

The assertion was made that we still have Kelvin Mace Jun 2012 #50

Actually the court hasnt ruled on that aspect yet for US citizens if your refering to cstanleytech Jun 2012 #57

The USSS clearly had an opportunity and right Kelvin Mace Jun 2012 #44

You can be arrested pretty easy already if a police officer is determined enough to do so the ruling cstanleytech Jun 2012 #47

But there was no "snap decision" Kelvin Mace Jun 2012 #49

I dont recall it specifying the time though but thats not the point which was the court cstanleytech Jun 2012 #56

In a perfect world Sekhmets Daughter Jun 2012 #5

Nah, in a perfect world he would never have been born. nt cstanleytech Jun 2012 #17

In a perfect world, lightning will strike Cheney's battery pack crunch60 Jun 2012 #29

This isnt a perfect world though :( nt cstanleytech Jun 2012 #30

Equating Cheney to Eichmann is somewhat ahistorical. Cheney is more akin to coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #21

I think Sekhmets Daughter Jun 2012 #34

Well, I'm an opponent of capital punishment, even for the darkest of rodents, so coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #36

Sadly, I must agree with Kelvin Mace Jun 2012 #43

I'm not a fan of capital Sekhmets Daughter Jun 2012 #52

Russ Feingold would have taken them on, as would Eliot Spitzer or Anthony Weiner. But the coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #54

Believe you misunderstand the authority of a VP. Not a deputy commander in 24601 Jun 2012 #33

Believe you misunderstand Sekhmets Daughter Jun 2012 #53

Eichmann was in charge of others. VPs have only their personal staffs. And the 24601 Jun 2012 #58

BAD headline from LATimes. elleng Jun 2012 #6

Listen carefully Can you hearing the Founding Father's scream from their graves at the outrageous lookingfortruth Jun 2012 #9

Guys like Cheney are above the law and Hubert Flottz Jun 2012 #16

Let's just face it this Deomcracy is a fraud. It has been the United States for the Corporations of lookingfortruth Jun 2012 #19

I disagree with the ruling, but very well bluestateguy Jun 2012 #20

It will be just as wrong then as it was in this case. But I know coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #22

Its not the mouthing off that will land you into jail or atleast cstanleytech Jun 2012 #48

"he had bumped the vice president." Really? He "bumped" Cheney? What does that mean? wordpix Jun 2012 #26