Supreme Court to shape Ferguson investigation

[Judi Lynn]

Supreme Court to shape Ferguson investigation
2014-08-22 09:14

Washington - The moment Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson shot an unarmed 18-year-old, a 25-year-old Supreme Court case became the prism through which his actions will be legally judged.

To most people, an 18-year-old unarmed man may not appear to pose a deadly threat. But a police officer's perspective is different. And that is how an officer should be judged after the fact, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the 1989 opinion.

The Supreme Court case, decided at a time when violence against police was on the rise, has shaped the national legal standards that govern when police officers are justified in using force.

~snip~

grand jury is hearing evidence to determine whether Wilson, aged 28, who has policed the St Louis suburbs for six years, should be charged in Brown's death.

Since the 1989 Graham v. Connor decision, the courts in most instances have sided with the police.

"Except in the most outrageous cases of police misconduct, juries tend to side with police officers and give them a lot of leeway," said Woody Connette, the attorney who represented the Charlotte, North Carolina, man behind the case, Dethorne Graham.

More:
http://www.news24.com/World/News/Supreme-Court-to-shape-Ferguson-investigation-20140822

[merrily]

1. What I remember most about Rehnquist:

A President was getting impeached for only the second time in the history of the nation. And Rehnquist worried about what outfit he should wear to the impeachment!

I'm about ready to get rid of the Supremes. Almost every vote breaks down along political lines, just like Congress. Speaking of which, guess what else I'm about ready to get rid of.

All that fucking money, from muffins to drivers to pensions to staffs to Secret Service to real estate for 435 reps, 100 Senators, and 9 Justices For what? So they can all vote along party lines?

In a biblical (OT) story, two sides decide war is stoooopid. So, they both agree to pick one champion per side and let them duke out. So, one side picks Goliath, a giant, and the other side picks David, a little kid armed with a slingshot.

Let's do that. Let's let Reid and Boehner duke it out. Much, much cheaper and the results probably would not be very different. Hell, maybe they'd even be better.

[Unknown Beatle]

2. I'm with you on this.

I'm so sick and tired of all the bullshit going on in DC. And the Supremes, fuck, we have to hold our breaths waiting on an important decision when we know how they're going to vote, which is why I was so surprised that they voted for the ACA, aka Obamacare.

[merrily]

3. That is not what they voted on, though.

In that case, they voted only on two parts of Obamacare, namely:

1. Could the federal government force individuals to buy something from purely private vendors?

In this case, the something happened to be health insurance, but the decision is precedent and by no means limited to health insurance. A yes answer to that question was pure Heritage Foundation, very Republican and not at all liberal. The alternative would have been no health care plan at all, which was overwhelming against public wishes, making employers pay, ala Nixon's plan, or having the federal government provide it, ala Medicare. None of those would be appealing to Republicans. The last should appeal to liberals.

They voted yes, right along party lines, except that Roberts (supposedly) switched his view in the middle writing the majority opinion. I was not surprised by the yes vote. I was, however, disappointed that 3 of the 5 yes votes were the supposedly liberal Justices.

2. Could the federal government force states to choose between expanding Medicare and getting zero Medicare? A yes vote would have put Republican governors and legislatures in a hell of a spot but would have been totally consistent with decades of commerce clause interpretations (since FDR). I was not surprised by a no vote. I was, however, disappointed that Kagan and Breyer joined the Republicans in voting no.

[santamargarita]

4. We'll all be buying bullet proof vests after the fascists five get their grubby hands on this case!