You might think the govt needs a good reason to put you in a cage and/or kidnap your children. But you’d me mistaken, at least according to our woefully misguided judiciary, which only requires a “rational basis.” Shameful. al.com/crime/2021/06/…
This is yet another illustration of how tyrannical reflexive judicial deference is and why the "take it up with the legislature" rejoinder is so hopelessly inadequate. Since she's a non-resident, it would literally be a crime for her to vote in the state that kidnapped her child.
Similarly, most of the plaintiffs in this occupational licensing case out of Texas were green-card holders—so again, it would be illegal for them to "take it up with the legislature." Fortunately, SCOTX was having none of it. casetext.com/analysis/patel…
And @JusticeWillett in particular was having none of it. This concurrence beautifully explains the folly and injustice of abject judicial deference to other branches—whether they're kidnapping children or putting immigrants out of work for no good reason. txcourts.gov/media/1008502/…
Oh, and if anyone's interested in the book-length treatment of the subject, here ya go: amazon.com/Terms-Engageme….
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In case you didn't see my earlier thread (or even if you did), it's crucial that you understand how incomprehensibly cruel govt can be, especially when judges—who have a duty to protect fundamental rights—are asleep at the bench. al.com/crime/2021/06/…
Alabama LEOs arrested this couple for possession of marijuana as they were passing through on their way back to Michigan, where it's legal. Alamaba LEOs also took away the couple's 18-month-old son and left him with strangers. As a parent, I can't even imagine the torment.
Properly understood, the Constitution limits the govt's power to put you in a cage or kidnap your children. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has embraced the tragically flawed idea that govt may do those things on a whim—or, in judge-speak, a "rational basis." amazon.com/Terms-Engageme….
As someone who came to criminal justice reform after nearly two decades in constitutional law, the thing I can't get over is how utterly cavalier police and prosecutors can sometimes (emphasis on "sometimes"—take it easy) be in cases involving matters of life and death. /1
For example, when there's been a heinous murder and the killer is still on the loose with every indication that he (and it's almost always a he) is likely to kill again, they will sometimes arrest a suspect on the flimsiest of evidence—or, worse, despite overwhelming... /2
evidence of innocence—just to close the case. I'm reading about just such a case in Texas right now. DNA analysis unambiguously excluded the man they'd arrested for the murder, but they soldiered on trying to prosecute him anyway while the trail of the true killer went cold. /3
I've been mocking the "Four Seasons" press conference pretty mercilessly today. Here's why:
1. It's hilarious. Your heart would have to be made of stone not to laugh at the spectacle of a defeated administration proclaiming a massive conspiracy to steal the election in the parking lot of a landscaping company sandwiched between a crematorium and a sex shop.
2. I'm sick of it. Sick of the lies, the cruelty, the malice, and most of all the relentless polarizing by a president who panders to the basest of his base, dehumanizes his opponents, cozies up to dictators, and denigrates the very institutions that sustain us.
A credible case can be made that the way it was *supposed* to work here is that before govt can do you any significant harm (eg, incarceration, forfeiture, any non-trivial financial penalty) it has to go to trial and get a jury verdict. The implications of that are staggering. /1
First, trials are expensive, inconvenient, and uncertain. It’s basically impossible to impose any kind of punishment/penalty on a mass scale if every case has to go to trial. This means govt has to focus on the small # of truly bad people rather than mere rule-breakers. /2
Second, people are going to get sick of being called for jury duty to adjudicate ticky-tacky BS like low-level drug sales and will send a message to prosecutors and legislators to knock it off. Like in this story: nola.com/news/courts/ar… /3
I would strongly urge conservatives who wish to maintain their credibility in the criminal justice space to stop misrepresenting what happened in the Breonna Taylor case:
1. The cops DID have a no-knock warrant. This is undisputed.
2. While it appears they knocked, it is hotly disputed whether they announced themselves as police.
3. If they did announce, it is highly likely based on the totality of circumstances, that they knocked-announced-and-deployed-the-battering-ram all at once, which is an extremely common technique and completely defeats the purpose of the knock-and-announce rule.