| |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Slavery also took advantage of valid court orders. “Because it’s the law” is not enough. Our rights should always be the biased stance. | | | |
| ▲ | p-e-w 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why? What is the rationale? Unless of course you subscribe to the idea that anything goes as long as a court decrees it, in which case there’s nothing to debate really. | | |
| ▲ | _heimdall 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Court approved warrants are pretty fundamental to how our legal system works and how some level of accountability is maintained. That system isn't perfect by any stretch, but removing it unlocks Pandoras box and I'm not sure we'd be better off without it. As it stands, a cop has to get a warrant to enter and search your home, for example. If we remove that hurdle because we also don't trust the courts then we just have more searches. I get the reaction to turn on the whole system, I have very little faith in it myself. But I don't think many people are really aware of or ready for what would come without it. | | |
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Have you been paying attention to the news lately where Trump is weaponizing the court system to a point where ethical AGs are resigning instead of complying? | | |
| ▲ | cpncrunch 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Thats not an argument to get rid of the courts. Quite the opposite. Trump is trying to sideline them, but ultimately it will fail becausethe population wont accept it. The US isnt China or Russia, and Trump may have to learn that. | | |
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | The population is accepting it right now. 40% of the people still approve of everything Trump is doing. If you have 10 friends and you ask them what they want to eat for dinner and 6 say let’s go to a Mexican restaurant and 4 say let’s kill Bob and eat him, you still need to worry about your friend group. Right this second ICE agents are killing people with impunity and police for the longest have had qualified immunity to kill people unjustly. The country voted for this knowing exactly what they were going to get. Don’t believe the Michelle Obama “this is not who we are” this is who this country has always been | | |
| ▲ | Alive-in-2025 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The country voted for it but it wasn't a rational choice. Half the country lives in insane false world, pushed by Fox news. But it's a near-majority every election. | |
| ▲ | trimethylpurine 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There are so many rulings, just in the last 25 years even, where SCOTUS has reaffirmed that warrantless search is not okay. This one is very much in line with the topic, in fact. Carpenter v. United States (2018) This country has never been what you're saying. We have some over policing happening. That seems to come and go in every country and doesn't say anything by itself about what a county is about, especially where it's trending over a 25 year timeline in the opposite direction from what you're describing. Let it go to court, at least, before you flip your lid and turn on your countrymen. Please. | | |
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | As people are getting shot by ICE today. Today on HN on the front page there was an article about someone being forced to use their biometric security to unlock their phone. And then to say this country has never been what I’m saying is to ignore Jim Crow, sundown towns that were prevalent into the mid 80s, etc. | | |
| ▲ | trimethylpurine 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Democrats (the South) always said that this country was always about slavery. They used that rhetoric to argue FOR slavery for decades after it was abolished. This is all documented in supreme court cases from the 18th century on up through the civil war. Some of the founding fathers argued as attorneys in some of those cases in fact, stating firmly that slavery was always illegal in the United States. Republicans (Lincoln included) pointed to the Constitution as evidence that slavery was always illegal and that the southern states had a limited time to abolish it (that's factually written in the Constitution, a concession made in order to earn their support in the revolution). The disagreement on that is exactly what led to the civil war. The South refused to live up to the Constitution's terms and end slavery, counter to the law. The Republicans won that war. We live in that country that won. Not the one you're describing. Jim Crow was a Southern state thing. The North never allowed it. We live in the North. The South is gone and it was never part of this country because it violated the laws that would have made it so. They rebelled against anti slavery laws from the beginning and they finally got what they deserved, to be conquered by the United States that we live in today. And then they still argued to keep slavery and the Supreme Court kept slapping it down. Over and over and over. If you believe that the United States was ever about slavery, then you carry the rhetoric of the very party that created Jim Crow and that supported slavery, and you make them the good guy in the story. You support their version, where it was always legal and they got screwed by the lying North. The irony... Don't ignore the writings of Washington, Franklin, Hancock, etc. All wrote to say that slavery has no place in this country. And it never did! Their letters are preserved for you to read. They are available online or in one of the museums in DC. Probably the National Archive? Someone can correct me if they know. Anyway, that some people refuse to follow the law, isn't a reflection of the country as a whole. Similarly, when someone is killed in Norway, I don't jump to conclude that Norwegians are murderers. That wouldn't make any sense. Did you go to high school in the South somewhere? The revisionist's history of the US seems to stem from that part of the country. I'm just curious if it tracks. |
|
| |
| ▲ | _heimdall 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What poll have you seen that asks people to approve of everything any president does? I live in a very red part of the country, and in a very red, rural area that voted ~90% for Trump. I don't know anyone that is okay with everything he has done. Some take issue with Venezuela, some with the handling of the Epstein files or the federal budget. Some don't like sabre rattling over Greenland. Most people I know that do vote Republican are one issue voters. At least here people voted because they always vote republican, support the second amendment, think the republicans actually want a balanced budget, or just hated Clinton/Biden. It isn't about supporting whatever Trump does, though I'm sure some small percentage does. People regardless of party or region don't think critically often enough and can't set aside their own personal beliefs. We've made our country bipolar and we're seeing the repercussions. It isn't a problem with any one party or person, and the answer isn't to tear down the fundamentals of our system. We need to actually get back to the fundamentals because of late both parties have been going the way of socialism and authoritarianism. | | |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | direwolf20 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That's how courts work. They have superuser access. | |
| ▲ | angry_octet 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A court order is just a hurdle that legislation (or a constitutional provision) dicatates, in the investigation of crime (or prevention of future crime...). The distinction is the rights of the individual vs the rights of other individuals in the dilute sense we call society. The problem is that individuals no longer have confidence in their institutions, for both good reasons (official corruption, motivated prosecutors, the dissolution of norms of executive behaviour) and bad ones (propaganda on Fox News, and the long tail of disinformation online). The question becomes: how can citizens have confidence their rights will be protected? What structure would protect the right to privacy? | | |
| ▲ | p-e-w 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | The only reliable way to protect rights is to limit power, and the only reliable way to protect fundamental rights is to limit power with absolute prohibitions. This was well understood in the decades following WW2, and many countries implemented protections of this kind, only to roll them back again later when people had forgotten why they existed, and believed once more that everything will be fine as long as the “right” actors were in power. |
| |
| ▲ | cpncrunch 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Im a little confused. Do you not believe there should be courts at all? | | |
| ▲ | p-e-w 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | What I don’t believe is that courts should have the power to force anything to happen just by signing a piece of paper. | | |
| ▲ | Ms-J 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Thank you for sharing this fact. Warrants can be had for almost any situation with creative phrasing from who is asking for it. Warrants are so easy to obtain and so abused it is required that we all do something differently. | | |
| ▲ | Alive-in-2025 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | They aren't that hard to get, yet Trump's warriors ice never seem to have warrants signed by a judge. Going back to being able to ignore fake warrants not signed by a judge without them killing you would be a big step forward. |
| |
| ▲ | cpncrunch 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | So how should it work? | | |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | p-e-w 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | With fundamental rules, applicable to all situations, limiting what information courts can demand. There are things so private that they should be out of reach of the state regardless of what justification someone can come up with. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
