• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/06/people-of-praise-accused-child-abuse-amy-coney-barrett?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=soc_568&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1654508947

So, I think we all knew Coney-Barrett was/is in a creepy cult called People of Praise, where they all lived together and did creepy cult shit and hated on women, but some new stuff came out about one of the leaders, with whom Amy lived for a period of time.


"Cynthia Carnick stated in the documents that she had witnessed Dorothy Ranaghan tie the arms and legs of two of the Ranaghans’ daughters – who were three and five at the time the incidents were allegedly witnessed – to their crib with a necktie. She also said that the Ranaghans allegedly practiced “sexual displays” in front of their children and other adults, such as Dorothy Ranaghan lying with her clothes on and “rocking” on top of Kevin Ranaghan in their TV room.

Humphrey also wrote in her statement: “When I was part of the People of Praise I was in full life submission to Kevin Ranaghan, under full obedience to him and he exercised this authority over most areas of my life. For example, we were ‘in common’ financially, which meant that I had to hand over my paycheck to Kevin Ranaghan and he would decide on how that paycheck would be used. Kevin Ranaghan controlled my dating relationships, deciding who and when I should date."

A third woman, Susan Reynolds, said in a sworn statement that she lived in the Ranaghan household, and that she had at one point been “shocked” to hear that Kevin Ranaghan sometimes showered with two of his daughters, who were 10 or 11 at the time."


I can't believe this person is on the Supreme Court. Republicans are so fucking nuts. I'd put Tom Cruise on the court way before a self-loathing creepy nutcase like Amy.
 
Dismantling everything -- gutting the 4th amendment. Party of freedumb:

 
Shooshmoo said:
Dismantling everything -- gutting the 4th amendment. Party of freedumb:

Click to expand...

the long play to turn Homeland Security into brownshirts
 
Shooshmoo said:
Dismantling everything -- gutting the 4th amendment. Party of freedumb:

Click to expand...

That’s definitely not what that case stands for. There’s plenty to criticize the court about, but there is no need to start making stuff up.
 
Last edited:
Les Grossman said:
That’s definitely not what that case stands for. There’s plenty to criticize the court for. There is no need to start making stuff up.
Click to expand...

What does it stand for?
 
It failed to extend a claim for damages in a civil case brought by someone who stated a border patrol agent violated his rights with a fairly unique set of factual circumstances.

I do not take it as setting a precedent that a border patrol agent can now search your home without a warrant.
 
well they definitely didnt' say a BP agent can't enter your home and search without a warrant
 
Les Grossman said:
It failed to extend a claim for damages in a civil case brought by someone who stated a border patrol agent violated his rights with a fairly unique set of factual circumstances.

I do not take it as setting a precedent that a border patrol agent can now search your home without a warrant.
Click to expand...

I don't know how unique the circumstances were - as Sotomayor pointed out, the only real factual differences between this case and Bivens are that this case involved a CBP officer and was near an international border. I agree with your point overall, though. I think the case was wrongly decided, but don't think it's some sweeping decision allowing CBP officers free reign to warrantless searches.
 
Keep taking baby steps and you'll be halfway where you want to go before anyone can notice or complain.
 
deaconson said:
Keep taking baby steps and you'll be halfway where you want to go before anyone can notice or complain.
Click to expand...

Correct -- it's naive to play these cases down. They have been chipping way and will continue to chip away at constitutional rights (other than the 2d amendment, of course). They are constantly reversing well established precedent and putting the onus on a Congress that will, obviously, never get anything done to remedy it. Gorsuch said Bivens is dead, and he is correct.

There was nothing "fairly unique" about the circumstances here that would warrant a different outcome than Bivens. As Sotomayor noted, the court had clarified the standard for Bivens case just 5 years ago, and the new court just gutted it. There are no federal remedies for me (someone within their 100 mile border ambit) if a border agent enters my home and assaults me without a warrant like they did Boule. Of course, they won't do that because they are targeting people who look a certain way (and I imagine that's why certain folks will continue to play it down - they're ok with that).
 
Last edited:
I’m not saying I agree with the decision. I’m just saying I don’t believe that jurisprudence regarding warrantless searches of homes has changed with this opinion as that tweet claimed.
 
Last edited:
 
deactherunner said:
Click to expand...

I remember when Junebug or some other conservative poster here posted that just because the new Supreme Court supermajority was likely to overturn Roe didn't mean that they were going to go after lots of other landmark progressive Court rulings over the last century or so. Looks like they may have been mistaken. "We'll fix it so that it was like the Warren Court never existed!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top