SCOTUS conservative majority actively eroding civil rights

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
30,802
18,536
136
Look at this case that made it to SCOTUS and take a look how they ruled. Tell me how this case does not weaken civil rights protections.

The case involves a 2014 dispute between Erik Egbert, a US Border Patrol agent, and Robert Boule, the owner of an inn that abuts the US-Canada border in Washington state. Egbert and Boule clashed over a Turkish guest at the inn who Egbert wanted to investigate. Boule claimed Egbert entered the property without a warrant and that he told the agent to leave but Egbert allegedly refused, got violent, and threw him against a vehicle and then to the ground. Boule complained to Egbert’s supervisors, after which the agent allegedly retaliated against Boule by contacting the Internal Revenue Service and prompting a tax audit. Boule then sued Egbert in federal court for excessive use of force (a Fourth Amendment violation) and for unlawful retaliation (a First Amendment violation).

Eventually the case landed before the US Supreme Court after an appeals court allowed Boule’s lawsuit to proceed. And last week came the 6-3 decision, where the conservative majority said that federal agents may not be held liable for the violation of constitutional rights unless Congress authorizes lawsuits for damages. In other words, the court didn’t eliminate the possibility that civil damages suits could be brought against federal officials for constitutional violations; the justices said that it’s Congress’s job to determine when someone can file a lawsuit for monetary damages in those cases.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, said that allowing a suit against a Border Patrol agent “presents national security concerns that foreclose Bivens relief.” A Bivens action refers to any lawsuit for damages against a federal officer for constitutional violations. Ultimately, the majority concluded that “a Bivens cause of action may not lie where, as here, national security is at issue.”


Sotomayor forcefully pushed back against the majority’s reasoning in her dissent, which was joined by justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. “This case does not remotely implicate national security,” Sotomayor wrote. She added, “The Court may wish it were otherwise,” but based on the facts of the case, “its effort to raise the specter of national security is mere sleight of hand.”
As SCOTUS’ conservative majority weakens civil rights, Sonia Sotomayor begs to differ (msn.com)
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
14,935
12,028
136
From what I read last week it's actually within 100 miles of any border. This means border control is now essentially a fascist Gestapo for most of the populated United States.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,514
5,596
126
Probably going to steer the country into another civil war like the Taney court. Then call for civility :tearsofjoy:
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
107,973
24,276
146
Maybe if we can somehow manage to annul the Trump presidency, we can open up 3 quick SCOTUS seats that were illegally filled during a non-existent regime, with zero authority to do so.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,325
4,657
126
The Perjurors continue doing radical things. If you can't remove them, dilute their influence by packing the Court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
107,973
24,276
146

tribal sovereignty? why would they ever keep their treaty promises
well, in some cases, the tribal courts are protecting rapists and murderers because of "tribal reasons."

Not sure what I think about this one, initially.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
29,630
6,247
136
well, in some cases, the tribal courts are protecting rapists and murderers because of "tribal reasons."

Not sure what I think about this one, initially.
The nature of the crime shouldn't matter, though.

Closest thing I can think of is how you can be charged by an individual state as well as the federal government under differing statutes for the "same crime". That seems to be the crux of this case and why it was ruled the way it was (not that I agree with it).

I'm inclined to say (based on my cursory reading of the article), that because the tribal courts were established by the federal government, prosecution and sentencing by them is an extension of federal authority, and any further prosecution constitutes double jeopardy.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,561
32,191
136
Kind of funny how the ruling essentially says that while you have constitutional rights if the government violates them you have no recourse, which of course means you don’t really have those rights.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
30,802
18,536
136
Kind of funny how the ruling essentially says that while you have constitutional rights if the government violates them you have no recourse, which of course means you don’t really have those rights.
But according the conservatives there are 2A remedies. Which means they should have no objections to protesters outside Kavanaugh's house.

Remember according to them guns are supposed to be a defense against a tyrannical government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
14,935
12,028
136
When the right goes full fascist, the border patrol will become their new Gestapo. They simply won't have to follow any rules. Want to illegally arrest resistors in NYC or San Fran or Portland? They are just setting it all up quite nicely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

ASK THE COMMUNITY