The Supremes

[Brisketexan 105069]

So 2/3s of Americans live in a zone where cops can break into your house, beat the shit out of you and have zero consequences brought against them.
'Murica!!

Correct. And yeah, it doesn’t overrule Bivens? It fucking overrules Bivens. A fed can fucking murder you, and you have no recourse.
Which - and this is very, very important - this is how the GQP wants it. An important element of is telling fascism is to make your Gestapo completely and totally above the law, so they then have a free hand to violently impose their extra-legal will on the citizenry. This is a very important piece of that plan.

[Dr. Teeth 5843]

23 hours ago, babysdaddy said:

 

 

Lock your doors. 

[crash_davis 23101]

30 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

So 2/3s of Americans live in a zone where cops can break into your house, beat the shit out of you and have zero consequences brought against them.

'Murica!!

they party of muh freedom doesn't give a shit about muh freedoms.

[WhatTheBuck 28775]

1 hour ago, crash_davis said:

The Biden administration supported Egbert and argued that Bivens should not be extended to cover the case at hand.

That’s very disappointing. 

[Brisketexan 105069]

That’s very disappointing. 

Yep, that too. The fucking machine doesn’t give a shit about you.

[WhatTheBuck 28775]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep, that too. The fucking machine doesn’t give a shit about you.

To quote Frank Zappa (from The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing):

'Cause what they do
In Washington
They just takes care of NUMBER ONE
An' number one ain't you
You ain't even number two

The song ends with a more positive message.

Do what you wanna
Do what you will
Just don't mess up
Your neighbor's thrill
'N when you pay the bill
Kindly leave a little tip
And help the next poor sucker
On his one way trip

And to save you all the trouble:

 

[tx 3 putt 76871]

7 hours ago, Dr. Teeth said:

Lock your doors. 

 

and give kavanaugh a gun, problem solved 

[TexasEd 8066]

The maps

 

 

 

 

[gmr548 16576]

[/url]  
 
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/politics/supreme-court-border-patrol-agents/index.html
Supreme Court limits excessive force claims against Border Patrol agents
By Tierney Sneed and Ariane de Vogue, CNN
Updated 11:17 AM ET, Wed June 8, 2022
(CNN)The Supreme Court said Wednesday that a Border Patrol agent in Washington state cannot be personally sued in federal court for damages after a private citizen brought claims of illegal retaliation and excessive force.
The decision continues a recent trend of the high court cutting back on the ability of individuals to sue law enforcement officers who violate their constitutional rights when there is no specific law authorizing such a claim to go forward.
The ruling expands federal officers' immunity from private lawsuits and reverses a lower court opinion that allowed the lawsuit to go forward. Lawyers for the Border Patrol agent argued that the threat of liability would interfere with his job duties.
Exclusive: Supreme Court leak investigation heats up as clerks are asked for phone records in unprecedented move
The court said 9-0 that the Border Patrol agent could not face a lawsuit under a First Amendment claim of retaliation. The court also said that the agent could not face a lawsuit under the Fourth Amendment for an alleged excessive use of force, with the court's three liberal justices dissenting.
CNN had filed a friend-of-the-court-brief arguing that the court should not further cut back the ability to bring damages lawsuits against government officials who violate the First Amendment.
The case was brought by Robert Boule, a US citizen who owned a bed and breakfast near the Canadian border in Washington. Boule had filed a lawsuit against Customs and Border Patrol Agent Erik Egbert, after a 2014 encounter at Boule's inn during which Egbert allegedly used excessive force against Boule. Boule also alleged that Egbert engaged in retaliation against Boule after Boule reported injuries from the encounter to Egbert's supervisors.
Boule sued Egbert in federal court, with a lawsuit seeking damages for a violation of his First and Fourth Amendment rights. Boule's lawyers pointed to a 1971 decision called "Bivens" that held that a private individual could sue a federal officer for damages if his fundamental rights are violated. In recent years the court has been reticent to extend the holding of Bivens to other circumstances.
Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said that lower courts had erred in finding Boule could pursue his Fourth Amendment claims under the "Bivens" test that the Supreme Court had previously laid out.
"Congress is better positioned to create remedies in the border-security context, and the Government already has provided alternative remedies that protect plaintiffs like Boule," Thomas wrote.
The Supreme Court additionally concluded Wednesday that there was no Bivens cause of action for retaliation claims brought under the First Amendment.
Thomas wrote that extending Bivens to that context "could pose an acute risk of increasing" social costs, including "the risk that fear of personal monetary liability and harassing litigation will unduly inhibit officials in the discharge of their duties."
"A plaintiff can turn practically any adverse action into grounds for a retaliation claim," Thomas wrote, adding that even a "frivolous retaliation claim" could set off an expansive discovery process in "which there is often no clear end to the relevant evidence."
"We are therefore 'convinced' that, in light of these costs, 'Congress is in a better position to decide whether or not the public interest would be served' by imposing a damages action," Thomas wrote.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing the dissent from the majority's findings on the Fourth Amendment Bivens claims, said the majority had rewritten a legal standard it had recently put forward for those claims , with an opinion that "stretches national-security concerns beyond recognition, and discerns an alternative remedial structure where none exists."
"Today's decision does not overrule Bivens. It nevertheless contravenes precedent and will strip many more individuals who suffer injuries at the hands of other federal officers, and whose circumstances are materially indistinguishable from those in Bivens, of an important remedy," Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion that said that the court should "forthrightly return the power to create new causes of action to the people's representatives in Congress."
During the 2014 episode, Egbert stopped Boule in town to ask him about guests staying at the inn. Boule said that two of his employees were en route to pick up a guest who had recently arrived from Turkey. Later that day, when the guest arrived, Egbert followed the car carrying the guest into the driveway and attempted to approach it. Boule, asked Egbert to leave which led to an altercation. According to Boule, Egbert pushed him to the ground and began asking the guest about his immigration status. Boule called 911, more agents arrived for back up and determined the guest was lawfully in the country. After seeking treatment for back injuries, Boule complained to Egbert's supervisors about his conduct at the inn and Egbert retaliated. Egbert contacted the IRS and asked it to look into Boule's tax status.
In the lawsuit against Egbert, Boule argued Egbert had retaliated against him in violation of his First Amendment rights and that he had entered his private property, refused to leave and pushed him to the ground violating his Fourth Amendment rights.
"Awarding individual damages for federal officer misconduct has long-standing roots dating back to the founding and remains appropriate, albeit more limited, today," Boule's attorney, Felicia H. Ellsworth argued.
Sarah M. Harris, a lawyer for Egbert countered that the Constitution "vests Congress alone with the power to create damage actions" and that the judiciary "isn't well suited to assess the systemic costs and benefits of a new damages action."
"Border Patrol agents are in dangerous circumstances every day trying to interdict terrorists, smugglers, illegal entry and exit of foreign nationals crossing the border," she said.
The Biden administration supported Egbert and argued that Bivens should not be extended to cover the case at hand.

If that’s not a 4th amendment violation, let’s just burn the constitution and bill of rights, write “Trump 4 Life” in crayon, hang it in the National Archives, and call it a day.

[JBJ 3654]

It's not whether it's a 4A violation or not.  It's a procedural question.  Boule was asking Bivens to be expanded so that he could sue specifically the individual specifically in federal court. 

This case should have been an FTCA suit.  He had other remedies that failed or he ignored.

[Captainant 27637]

14 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It's not whether it's a 4A violation or not.  It's a procedural question.  Boule was asking Bivens to be expanded so that he could sue specifically the individual specifically in federal court. 

This case should have been an FTCA suit.  He had other remedies that failed or he ignored.

Have you read the facts of the case? A guys home and business were searched without a warrant because he had a vanity license plate that said "SMUGGLER". They violated his first and fourth amendment rights, but uncle thomas has decided that it WASNT a violation because of the "risk of undermining border security". 

That's extremely fucking fascist.

Edit: and the first page of the decision addresses the FCTA suit:

"Boule’s FTCA claim was ultimately denied, and Border Patrol took no action against Egbert for his use of force or alleged acts of retaliation."

Edited June 10, 2022 by Captainant

[JBJ 3654]

19 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Have you read the facts of the case?

Yes, but you haven't. 

Boule was an ICE informant who had met with Egbert that day and let him know a suspect was staying at his hotel that night.  Egbert waited until the suspect arrived and requested to check his passport and ID. Boule wasn't happy about this and was grounded and held by Egbert while CBP checked the guest. The guests papers checked out, but he did cross illegally into Canada the next day and was apprehended by Mountees.

I don't know what went wrong when Egbert showed up to the hotel.  I suspect Boule didn't want his cover blown or otherwise wanted it handled differently.

CBP didn't search his home or hotel. It wasn't because he had a "Smuggler" plate or that his hotel was named "Smuggler's Inn."

Edited June 10, 2022 by JBJ

[babysdaddy 2719]

Trying to avoid the troll thread with this news.

 

 

[Pancho 44712]

 

[tx 3 putt 76871]

17 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

hang that bitch, and her husband 

[brakeman 28356]

Wow, it sounds like a really scary situation over at the Kavanaugh's house.

Edited June 10, 2022 by brakeman
edit

[tx 3 putt 76871]

3 minutes ago, brakeman said:

Wow, it sounds like a really scary situation over at the Kavanaugh's house.

lock his door and give him a gun. Problem solved !!!

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33865]

so the security he already has was enough to deter this man and now we need to add more?

[Gap03 3303]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

so the security he already has was enough to deter this man and now we need to add more?

Beat me to it.  Fucker is in a lot better position than kids in public schools, doctors at Planned Parenthood, and a shit ton of other innocent people that Kavanaugh and the rest of the fascist wing of the USSC and statehouses throughout the country have put in harms way.  McConnell and Kavanaugh can continue to get fucked.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33865]

40 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

Beat me to it.  Fucker is in a lot better position than kids in public schools, doctors at Planned Parenthood, and a shit ton of other innocent people that Kavanaugh and the rest of the fascist wing of the USSC and statehouses throughout the country have put in harms way.  McConnell and Kavanaugh can continue to get fucked.

metaphorically, because otherwise, gross

[Nivek 16923]

On 6/9/2022 at 9:23 AM, crash_davis said:

 

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/politics/supreme-court-border-patrol-agents/index.html

Supreme Court limits excessive force claims against Border Patrol agents

By Tierney Sneed and Ariane de Vogue, CNN

Updated 11:17 AM ET, Wed June 8, 2022

(CNN)The Supreme Court said Wednesday that a Border Patrol agent in Washington state cannot be personally sued in federal court for damages after a private citizen brought claims of illegal retaliation and excessive force.

The decision continues a recent trend of the high court cutting back on the ability of individuals to sue law enforcement officers who violate their constitutional rights when there is no specific law authorizing such a claim to go forward.

The ruling expands federal officers' immunity from private lawsuits and reverses a lower court opinion that allowed the lawsuit to go forward. Lawyers for the Border Patrol agent argued that the threat of liability would interfere with his job duties.

Exclusive: Supreme Court leak investigation heats up as clerks are asked for phone records in unprecedented move

The court said 9-0 that the Border Patrol agent could not face a lawsuit under a First Amendment claim of retaliation. The court also said that the agent could not face a lawsuit under the Fourth Amendment for an alleged excessive use of force, with the court's three liberal justices dissenting.

CNN had filed a friend-of-the-court-brief arguing that the court should not further cut back the ability to bring damages lawsuits against government officials who violate the First Amendment.

The case was brought by Robert Boule, a US citizen who owned a bed and breakfast near the Canadian border in Washington. Boule had filed a lawsuit against Customs and Border Patrol Agent Erik Egbert, after a 2014 encounter at Boule's inn during which Egbert allegedly used excessive force against Boule. Boule also alleged that Egbert engaged in retaliation against Boule after Boule reported injuries from the encounter to Egbert's supervisors.

Boule sued Egbert in federal court, with a lawsuit seeking damages for a violation of his First and Fourth Amendment rights. Boule's lawyers pointed to a 1971 decision called "Bivens" that held that a private individual could sue a federal officer for damages if his fundamental rights are violated. In recent years the court has been reticent to extend the holding of Bivens to other circumstances.

Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said that lower courts had erred in finding Boule could pursue his Fourth Amendment claims under the "Bivens" test that the Supreme Court had previously laid out.

"Congress is better positioned to create remedies in the border-security context, and the Government already has provided alternative remedies that protect plaintiffs like Boule," Thomas wrote.

The Supreme Court additionally concluded Wednesday that there was no Bivens cause of action for retaliation claims brought under the First Amendment.

Thomas wrote that extending Bivens to that context "could pose an acute risk of increasing" social costs, including "the risk that fear of personal monetary liability and harassing litigation will unduly inhibit officials in the discharge of their duties."

"A plaintiff can turn practically any adverse action into grounds for a retaliation claim," Thomas wrote, adding that even a "frivolous retaliation claim" could set off an expansive discovery process in "which there is often no clear end to the relevant evidence."

"We are therefore 'convinced' that, in light of these costs, 'Congress is in a better position to decide whether or not the public interest would be served' by imposing a damages action," Thomas wrote.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing the dissent from the majority's findings on the Fourth Amendment Bivens claims, said the majority had rewritten a legal standard it had recently put forward for those claims , with an opinion that "stretches national-security concerns beyond recognition, and discerns an alternative remedial structure where none exists."

"Today's decision does not overrule Bivens. It nevertheless contravenes precedent and will strip many more individuals who suffer injuries at the hands of other federal officers, and whose circumstances are materially indistinguishable from those in Bivens, of an important remedy," Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion that said that the court should "forthrightly return the power to create new causes of action to the people's representatives in Congress."

During the 2014 episode, Egbert stopped Boule in town to ask him about guests staying at the inn. Boule said that two of his employees were en route to pick up a guest who had recently arrived from Turkey. Later that day, when the guest arrived, Egbert followed the car carrying the guest into the driveway and attempted to approach it. Boule, asked Egbert to leave which led to an altercation. According to Boule, Egbert pushed him to the ground and began asking the guest about his immigration status. Boule called 911, more agents arrived for back up and determined the guest was lawfully in the country. After seeking treatment for back injuries, Boule complained to Egbert's supervisors about his conduct at the inn and Egbert retaliated. Egbert contacted the IRS and asked it to look into Boule's tax status.

In the lawsuit against Egbert, Boule argued Egbert had retaliated against him in violation of his First Amendment rights and that he had entered his private property, refused to leave and pushed him to the ground violating his Fourth Amendment rights.

"Awarding individual damages for federal officer misconduct has long-standing roots dating back to the founding and remains appropriate, albeit more limited, today," Boule's attorney, Felicia H. Ellsworth argued.

Sarah M. Harris, a lawyer for Egbert countered that the Constitution "vests Congress alone with the power to create damage actions" and that the judiciary "isn't well suited to assess the systemic costs and benefits of a new damages action."

"Border Patrol agents are in dangerous circumstances every day trying to interdict terrorists, smugglers, illegal entry and exit of foreign nationals crossing the border," she said.

The Biden administration supported Egbert and argued that Bivens should not be extended to cover the case at hand.

Its clear to me this supreme court should be just ignored because they have failed at the job the people are paying them for.   Seems they are just grasping at straws to as they support the oligarchic police state agenda.

['stache 21797]

2 hours ago, babysdaddy said:

Trying to avoid the troll thread with this news.

 

 

Isn't that the same shit the people in Michigan had when they tried to kill or kidnap the Governor? They were acquitted, sounds like the same situation here.

[CooterBrown 18004]

What’s a made to be quiet boot? Isn’t that everything that’s not a tap shoe?

[CooterBrown 18004]

What’s a made to be quiet boot? Isn’t that everything that’s not a tap shoe?

['stache 21797]

Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas (big surprise) dissented today that they would throw out mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania if the voter forgot to write in the date on the form, even if the ballot is unquestionably received before the deadline. They're not even hiding their distain for voters.

[NWBuck 8552]

12 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

so the security he already has was enough to deter this man and now we need to add more?

Same logic as "Border patrol caught huge amounts of migrants, proving that the border patrol isn't doing anything" 

[Pods 7551]

9 hours ago, 'stache said:

Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas (big surprise) dissented today that they would throw out mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania if the voter forgot to write in the date on the form, even if the ballot is unquestionably received before the deadline. They're not even hiding their distain for voters.

Sounds like we need to start telling GQP voters it is critical they don't put the date on their mail-in ballots.

That way Trump can back date them to count for the 2016 election too and give him the extra votes he needs to have the Supreme Court hand him the election. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33865]

11 hours ago, NWBuck said:

Same logic as "Border patrol caught huge amounts of migrants, proving that the border patrol isn't doing anything" 

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

 

[Gap03 3303]

9 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

She's going to poison him, isn't she?

[brakeman 28356]

[Horn Dog 9816]

[wildcat09 29346]

Josh Blackman is first out of the gate in the anti-Semitic “actually Jews don’t get religious freedom” games. Not gonna bother with linking to it because it’s of precisely zero value, but here’s a short Twitter thread taking his nonsense apart:

 

[Brisketexan 105069]

Josh Blackman is first out of the gate in the anti-Semitic “actually Jews don’t get religious freedom” games. Not gonna bother with linking to it because it’s of precisely zero value, but here’s a short Twitter thread taking his nonsense apart:
 

They’ve always been going there. Because it’s not about religion at all, and never has been. It’s about power and control, and you show people you have both by being cruel. If it’s not about being cruel, then it’s not “real religion” by their lens.

[tx 3 putt 76871]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Josh Blackman is first out of the gate in the anti-Semitic “actually Jews don’t get religious freedom” games. Not gonna bother with linking to it because it’s of precisely zero value, but here’s a short Twitter thread taking his nonsense apart:

 

 

little fyi, who killed Jesus ?

 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28775]

7 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

little fyi, who killed Jesus 

The Romans. 

[BrickHorn 18216]

8 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

little fyi, who killed Jesus ?

 

 

The real murderers of Jesus are all the friends we made along the way.

[Fudge Nuggets 19189]

10 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Josh Blackman is first out of the gate in the anti-Semitic “actually Jews don’t get religious freedom” games. Not gonna bother with linking to it because it’s of precisely zero value, but here’s a short Twitter thread taking his nonsense apart:

 

How many rednecks that refused vax mandates did so on "religious grounds"?

[Neonmoon 38129]

How hard would it be to create a religion that has the following beliefs? Do I need to fill out a form or something?

1. be kind to others 

2. a woman's body is sacred and only she can decide which life to bring into the world, and she has the right to terminate any pregnancy she deems fit

3. peace is the greatest treasure, and weapons shall not be possessed unless hunting for food

4. Health is of one of the greatest things in the world, and one should strive to take care of oneself, and take care of others health whenever possible. 

 

 

[South Austin 52454]

11 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

How hard would it be to create a religion that has the following beliefs? Do I need to fill out a form or something?

1. be kind to others 

2. a woman's body is sacred and only she can decide which life to bring into the world, and she has the right to terminate any pregnancy she deems fit

3. peace is the greatest treasure, and weapons shall not be possessed unless hunting for food

4. Health is of one of the greatest things in the world, and one should strive to take care of oneself, and take care of others health whenever possible.

5.  No beans in chili.

[Neonmoon 38129]

10 minutes ago, South Austin said:

5.  No beans in chili.

Chili doesn't have beans in it, if it does, it ceases to be Chili and becomes a stew. We don't have to write that one down. 

[South Austin 52454]

2 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Chili doesn't have beans in it, if it does, it ceases to be Chili and becomes a stew. We don't have to write that one down. 

If we have to write down "be kind to others," then if I'm going to be part of this new religious club, I want to make it clear that putting beans in chili results in eternal damnation.

[Goredho 17397]

42 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

How hard would it be to create a religion that has the following beliefs? Do I need to fill out a form or something?

1. be kind to others 

2. a woman's body is sacred and only she can decide which life to bring into the world, and she has the right to terminate any pregnancy she deems fit

3. peace is the greatest treasure, and weapons shall not be possessed unless hunting for food

4. Health is of one of the greatest things in the world, and one should strive to take care of oneself, and take care of others health whenever possible. 

 

 

Weak.  How the fuck an I supposed to be the smiting hand of God with that hippy shit?

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

11 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Josh Blackman is first out of the gate in the anti-Semitic “actually Jews don’t get religious freedom” games. Not gonna bother with linking to it because it’s of precisely zero value, but here’s a short Twitter thread taking his nonsense apart:

 

As a Jew growing up in Texas, it became clear to me early on that "religious freedom" is simply "freedom from other religions" for most of these folks.

[South Austin 52454]

36 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Weak.  How the fuck an I supposed to be the smiting hand of God with that hippy shit?

See my item No. 5, and smite this shit.

['stache 21797]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Chili doesn't have beans in it, if it does, it ceases to be Chili and becomes a stew. We don't have to write that one down. 

 

1 hour ago, South Austin said:

If we have to write down "be kind to others," then if I'm going to be part of this new religious club, I want to make it clear that putting beans in chili results in eternal damnation.

Arrogant, judgmental, irrational takes spoken with extraordinary conviction. I think you'll fit right in with the other world religions. Will your services be held at Whataburgers?

[Goredho 17397]

27 minutes ago, South Austin said:

See my item No. 5, and smite this shit.

[wildcat09 29346]

 

Within the next five years, this Supreme Court will require states to grant equal state funding to both public schools and private religious schools.

[South Austin 52454]

Can I get an "Amen" for school vouchers?

[27-25 2047]

33 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

Within the next five years, this Supreme Court will require states to grant equal state funding to both public schools and private religious schools.

Some Satanic churches need to set up schools pronto.  Let's see what they think about that.