Where's the thread about America becoming a fascist police state?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

You are looking at it the wrong way, if I as a foreigner can already be indefinitely retained, it is only fair that internal American terrorists can also be. It is a matter of fairness.

After all one of the favourite old communist phrases was: "To protect agains external and internal enemies of the state" , the US is finally catching up, they are just slow that's all.

[kentonio]

Yeah there is a certain poetic justice to the whole 'when they came for the muslims' thing.

[MRT144]

Congress has been passing unconstitutional laws since John Adams was president. The Supreme Court generally does a good job of overturning them. It does not concern me very much.

Consider: We used to have legal slavery in this country. You used to be able to own another person. The United States today is less of a police state than it used to be, not more.

Not this Supreme Court. This Supreme Court is full of **** when it comes to civil liberties.

[Al B. Sure!]

You are looking at it the wrong way, if I as a foreigner can already be indefinitely retained, it is only fair that internal American terrorists can also be. It is a matter of fairness.

After all one of the favourite old communist phrases was: "To protect agains external and internal enemies of the state" , the US is finally catching up, they are just slow that's all.

The first sentence in the oath of enlistment:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

[Berzerker]

The Constitution contains a provision for suspending rights including the 5th

[Elkad]

The first sentence in the oath of enlistment:

See the "oathkeepers" movement.

Troops have fired on US citizens before. It will likely happen again. However, there will be resistance in the ranks this time.

We might get another Kent State. But we won't have another Bonus Army.

[Hauldren Collider]

Not this Supreme Court. This Supreme Court is full of **** when it comes to civil liberties.

That's utterly false. For instance Roberts, Scalia and Thomas are extremely strict on the First Amendment and Fourth and Fifth. Alito is usually pretty good, but he broke his streak with the Fred Phelps case.

Seriously, this assertion is completely baseless.

[MRT144]

That's utterly false. For instance Roberts, Scalia and Thomas are extremely strict on the First Amendment and Fourth and Fifth. Alito is usually pretty good, but he broke his streak with the Fred Phelps case.

Seriously, this assertion is completely baseless.

Citizens United was obviously when Clarence Thomas was at his most strict.

In its first five years, from 2006 until 2011, the Roberts Court granted certiorari in 29* cases in which a free speech violation was claimed (including the speech, press, assembly, and association guarantees). In these cases, the Court held that that a free speech violation existed in 10 of the cases, and that no free speech violation had been demonstrated in 19 of these cases. Thus, simply looking at the numbers, the Roberts Court has supported a free speech claim in 34.48 percent of argued cases. By way of comparison, as Lee Epstein and Jeffrey A. Segal have shown, from 1953 to 2004, the Supreme Court supported claims of deprivation of First Amendment liberties in 53.95 percent of argued cases. Thus, at the most basic quantitative level, the Roberts Court seems to be not especially protective of free speech rights.
Disaggregated, these numbers become more dramatic. Out of the 10 cases where the Roberts Court has supported a free speech claim, six of those are cases in which the Court struck down campaign finance reform laws (counting WRTL twice, per Epstein and Segal’s protocol*). These numbers bear out Chemerinsky’s argument that “what really animates [the Roberts Court’s ] decisions is a hostility to campaign finance laws much more than a commitment to expanding speech.”
Out of the four non-campaign finance cases in which the Roberts Court has supported a free speech claim, three -- the animal cruelty videos case, the funeral picketing case, and the violent video games case -- were what I will call free speech “slam-dunks” – that is, cases that were decided by an 8-1 or 7-2 majority, and in which (contrary to the usual Supreme Court’s certiorari practices) there was no split among circuit courts, and the Court affirmed the lower court decision. These free speech slam-dunks, with their colorful facts, were among the Roberts Court’s cases that have attracted the most press attention, but they are hardly indicative of a conservative majority with an expansive view of First Amendment freedoms. The remaining case in which the Roberts Court was willing to uphold a non-campaign finance related free speech claim was Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., a relatively low-profile commercial speech case in which a 6-3 majority of the Court struck down a state “prescription confidentiality” law, which barred sale or disclosure of doctors’ prescription practices to pharmaceutical marketers. An interesting case, and one which warrants more attention than it has received so far, but not really a banner-worthy free speech decision. At the same time, the conservative majority has shown itself willing to disregard free speech claims by, inter alia, government employee whistleblowers, humanitarian aid organizations, and, most pertinently for today’s purposes, unions. Thus, it seems that the most that can be said of the conservative majority’s free speech record is that “The Roberts court strongly protects speech that it likes, while allowing regulation of speech it disfavors,” as Adam Winkler has put it.

You're so full of **** and so transparently partisan that I could probably determine conservative thought (and outright fabrications) just by making a somewhat neutral political statement and seeing how far you go to represent just how correct the conservative side was. When you grow up, you'll understand that you can be your own person who observes and can form opinions and you don't just have to parrot bull**** because you believe them so much and agree with them.

[MRT144]

Morse v. Frederick

Obviously the court finds "Bong hits 4 Jesus" to be an exception to free speech for students

[dannubis]

Can someone tell me what kentonio is talking about? Unless you're in gitmo, the cops have to charge you with something and give you a trial or let you go.

The problem is ending up in gitmo then ...

[Imran Siddiqui]

I find it sad that people are ok with Congress passing unconstitutional laws, because "the Supreme Court will fix things". Seems so assbackwards.

[Hauldren Collider]

It's not that I'm okay with it, it's that I'm resigned to the fact that it occurs. It has occurred for the entire time our country has been in existence.

[kentonio]

You realize that if you all started going bat**** crazy about it and writing your elected officials, then it might actually stop, right?

[Hauldren Collider]

Abstract legal concepts are generally beyond the comprehension of the average voter. This is as true in the UK as it is in the US.

[DaShi]

That true. HC doesn't get them and he's at CMU. Imagine how Joe the Plumber would respond.