Entries Tagged 'supreme Court' ↓

UPDATE: SD Supreme Court rules excessive force case against Sioux Falls police officers can continue

UPDATE: Link to oral arguments, what is so crazy about listening to this is that 17 officers showed up over 5 drops of blood on a sidewalk to watch an officer slip on a rug . . . and they say they are understaffed. LMFAO.

While I was disappointed that the court supported the warrantless search they did say the trial for excessive force can move forward;

In its recently released opinion, Supreme Court justices agree that circumstances at the time created an exception to the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.

If you read the CASE you will see while the officers may have had a right to enter the apartment since they saw blood and heard people fighting throwing Ms. Boggs to the ground was not needed. It seems the only defense the police have is that they didn’t do what she claims. So where did her injuries come from? This is a perfect example of why body cameras are needed.

According to the 2021 salary listing both officers still work for the City of Sioux Falls as of January 1st. Officers Mark Toland and Andrew Pearson both make about $72K a year in hourly pay plus benefits.

I hope to have audio of the oral arguments soon.

A Legend Dies, RIP RBG

Not only am very saddened by Ruth’s passing, I’m afraid even if Trump loses in November, the Republican controlled Senate will replace her with a conservative judge that will push our Supreme Court to the hard right for decades. If you think Donny has f’kd this country, you wait until the SC goes right wing.

My thoughts on the Supreme Court confirmation hearings

Remember this lady? They didn’t believe her either.

I don’t like Washington, I tell people all the time what happens there is of no consequence to us locally. It is an outer space circus land.

But, I have been following the confirmation hearings, at a distance. A Supreme Court nomination DOES affect our lives on a local level and I find it deplorable that Thune & Rounds support Mr. Kavanaugh. We will get to that in a moment.

The one thing I remind people whether you are a Conservative, Moderate or Liberal, shouldn’t matter. We should be very concerned about this process because this is a life long appointment. We can’t vote Mr. Kavanaugh out of office in a few years if he makes bad decisions. He may be there for 30-40 years. The highest level of scrutiny should be given about every aspect of his life. Besides the sexual assault accusations, I have many concerns.

First off, I don’t think there has been enough study done about his years serving President GW Bush (one of the worst presidents ever besides Reagan). I also think he is way to conservative to be replacing Justice Kennedy. What we need is a strong, Constitutional Moderate. NOT a right wing ideologue who wants to put the Supreme Court backwards 60 years.

We must also remember that if the tables were turned and this was a Liberal appointment, the Republicans would be doing the same thing. That is just how Washington works. So when I hear Sen Graham chastise the Democrats on the committee I just shake my head.

But most importantly when we are trying to figure out who is telling the truth about the sexual assault, I remind people of a few simple things.

What does Dr. Ford have to gain by coming forward? What does Mr. Kavanaugh have to gain? He has all to gain, she has nothing but living with her memories of this assault. I guess I would give her testimony more weight based on this.

Maybe Mr. Kavanaugh has blacked this out of his memory, maybe he really doesn’t remember doing it. That is a distinct possibility. But it doesn’t change that it happened, and she is pretty sure it was him.

We already have a misogynist as president, hopefully he will be voted out of office and not serve a second term. But once Kavanaugh is confirmed, we can’t turn back. Remember that when defending his appointment.

McKennan Park Monster House owners ask for remodeling advice from the SD Supreme Court

You can’t make this stuff up;

In these latest documents for a rehearing with the Supreme Court, the Sapienzas’ attorney says that circuit court decision didn’t consider how remodeling, or tearing down and rebuilding will harm his clients.

That is not the concern of the courts. You own the house, you paid someone to design it and build it, so guess what, it’s your problem.

My guess is the SD Supreme Court will deny the re-hearing and inform the Sepienzas’ to hire a good handy man, one that is licensed and bonded of course 🙂

We need to Repeal our State Legislature

Why is the city paying for something the state should cover?

I got a surprise yesterday while attending the City Council working session. As some of you may or may not know, while the state shares revenue with alcohol sales, they don’t reimburse the city police department for conducting alcohol sale stings. I think a solution would be the city PD to stop doing the stings and require the Highway Patrol (which gets state funding) to do the stings.

Kenny Anderson says the problem is that people who fail the stings are not the owners or managers in most cases, it’s the clerks. While this is true, it is also the responsibility of the company to properly train their employees AND hire responsible people.

I have often said the solution is simple. Require anyone who is purchasing alcohol or tobacco to put their ID in a scanner. If they don’t or if the ID is incorrect, the cash register would refuse the sale. Of course, this would piss off a lot of older people who clearly look old enough to purchase. This would also probably get blow back from the malt beverage industry. I know a few years ago I read a study that said over 30% of beer that is consumed in this country is drunk by underage people. That’s a lot of lost revenue if roadblocks are put for these people to purchase.

Texting Ban – Still pointless & Unneeded

When the city decided to pass a texting ban, I agreed with councilor Staggers and some members of the Highway Patrol and SFPD, that it was unneeded because there are already laws in place like distracted driving and reckless driving that cover texting and driving. If you cause an accident while texting or talking on your phone, or  eating a hamburger or scratching your butt while driving, you will get one of these tickets. Don’t get me wrong, I think texting while driving is idiotic, but since the Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday about getting a warrant to search someone’s phone, it is going to be a lot harder to prove someone was texting and driving. That pesky US Constitution and 4th Amendment prevailed once again. Just wondering when our state legislature and city council are going to bother reading it and stop passing pointless laws and ordinances?

Is SC nominee Elena Kagan gay? Who cares.

To tell you the truth I think it would be fantastic to have a gay Supreme Court justice. Heck, we have a (half) black president, why not go all the way . . . (from Gawker);

Verdict: Between the hair, the softball, the “open secret” at Harvard, the purported partner, and the Andrew Sullivan outing, I’m going to go ahead and guess she’s gay. It should be interesting to see how her orientation plays out during the confirmation process and whether or not anyone on the Judiciary Committee will come right out and ask her.

People really need to start worrying about the real issues facing our country; War, environment, healthcare and the separation of classes. If Elena has a girlfriend how does that affect me?

Obama’s SCOTUS nomination

Five Supreme Court judges prove to be corporate tools

090525_r18516_p465

What good it the First Amendment if we can’t let non-people use it to?

While I am a registered Indy, I often lean to the left but have supported Republicans in the past, but I think what bugs me the most about Conservative Republicans is how they will bend over backwards to trample on the little guy so corporations can have their way, and this ruling proves it;

Some South Dakota political operatives are wary of a U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down Thursday that nullifies a 100-year-old restriction and allows corporations and unions to spend more money to influence federal elections.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court overturned rules that barred corporations and unions from using their money to sway federal elections and ruled that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals to spend as much as they wish to persuade voters to elect or defeat candidates for Congress and the White House.

This is disgusting on many levels, it would be one thing if the 5 justices that voted for this were just a bunch of regular Joes before they rolled into the SC, but not the case at all. Chief Justice John Roberts was a corporate tool before he got the job, and before that he worked for the second worst president we ever had, Ronald Reagan. He has an agenda, and that agenda has nothing to do with joe-six-pack.

Joel Rosenthal, former chairman of the state Republican Party, said the decision goes against what most people want.

“The public mood today is, ‘Let’s get this money out of politics,’ ” Rosenthal said. “This allows more money in.”

While I agree a 100% with Joel’s STATEMENT I find it ironic that he would say this, since he has assisted city candidates in the past that have taken plenty of money from BIG DEVELOPMENT company owners. But, hey, that’s okay because the companies themselves aren’t cutting the checks 🙂

Mark Anderson, president of the South Dakota Federation of Labor, said corporations aren’t people, and the First Amendment shouldn’t apply. Thursday’s decision “squeezes out the little guy.”

Well, Mark, not sure if you have not noticed, but the little guy has been squeezed out for a long, long, time.

Also, the court affirmed federal rules that require sponsors of political ads to disclose who paid for them.

In small 4 point type, of course.

Most experts have predicted the decision will send millions of extra dollars flooding into this fall’s elections. And they predict Republicans will be the main beneficiaries.

Get outta here! Makes you wonder why people even bother to vote anymore?

The dissenters included the three Democratic appointees: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. They joined a dissent written by 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens. Speaking from the bench, he called Thursday’s decision “a radical change in the law … that dramatically enhances the role of corporations and unions – and the narrow interests they represent – in determining who will hold public office.”

In other words, Bend over America!