Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All-purpose 2005-06 SCOTUS Cases Thread

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I'm sure it's not coincidence that the best example of the latter situation [destruction of evidence] is drug enforcement. I'm sure there are other examples, but I'm having difficulty thinking of them with that big one in the way.

-Q

Edited because of page break.

Edited by Qwertz
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The bottom of page 4, top of page 5 of the PDF explains that knock and announce is not required when (1) circumstances present a threat of physical violence, (2) there is reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given, or (3) knocking and announcing would be futile. The court stated further that only reasonable suspicion under the circumstances for one of these grounds is required. The showing is not high. It cited to Richards v. Wisconsin.

[Edit: I just skimmed Richards. The Wisconsin Supreme Court had created a per se exception to the rule for felony drug cases. In other words, the police never had to knock and announce for a felony drug case. <ahttp://forum.objectivismonline.com/uploads/emoticons/default_smile.png' alt=':)'> Good thing SCOTUS didn't go that route, although I have my doubts about the reasonable suspicion "standard.]

Edited by Groovenstein
Link to post
Share on other sites
Rapanos might be pretty limited. However, I think it might be very telling to see what the current Court has to say about the Commerce Clause, since two of three dissenters in Raich are now gone.
The SCOTUS ruled in favor of the land-owner. As such, it's a good ruling and will probably help other land-owners in a similar situation. Was there any other change of principle, that may be more widely applicable?
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting how articles have spun the decision both ways: some say it's a defeat for the Clean Water Act, while others say it is a blow to property rights. That's probably testimony to the narrow scope of the ruling.

On the one hand, the property owner won the case, and the government lost. On the other hand, the reasoning behind the "fifth judge's" vote seems to have been really narrow -- basically about whether this particular wetland affects other water.

Some conservative judges said that a wetland that was connected to a regulated waterway can be regulated; else not. That was too "lenient" for Justice Kennedy. He's happy with the idea that all that must exist is a “significant nexus”.

The government can probably come back with more precise rules that define what is and is not considered a “significant nexus”. That would put property owners back to where they were.

The ruling does give some property owners a break for now. I wonder how many these are -- as a percentage of all those being bullied. Is it a small number? Or would the government find it difficult to show a “significant nexus” for a whole lot of wetlands?

Link to post
Share on other sites
my initial reaction that this case will beat the odds by getting affirmed.

So much for that. Court decides Hamdan in favor of Hamdan. Vote was 5-3. The PDF is 180-something pages, and there is just an infinitesimal chance of me getting to it. So read it yourself or read news coverage, then comment here. It is probably safe to say that this is one of the most landmark cases on presidential power in history.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is probably safe to say that this is one of the most landmark cases on presidential power in history.

I haven't read the case in full yet, but from what I can figure out this case is a "landmark" more in its political implications rather than its legal ones. The case seems solidly built on Jackson's 3-part test which has existed ever since his opinion in Youngstown in 1952.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...