News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property. Parent comment

Re:U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize P... by mikeyouse on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @01:21PM (#19210425)
Abortion. And immigration.

"This may seem like a minor niggling point. It's not.

The Court's recognition of a right to abortion has been rooted in the Due Process Clause. Thomas & Gorsuch's concurrences document their opposition to grounding substantive rights in that corner of the 14th am."

https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1098242972162768901

"Thomas and Gorsuch announce that they would incorporate Bill of Rights through the Privileges or Immunities Clause, not the Due Process Clause. This is a wonky distinction, but one with huge stakes for immigrants. Due Process Clause protects “persons.” P or I protects “citizens.” "

https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1098238933719240704

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize P... by selimthegrim on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @06:02PM (#19212990)
RBG herself is well known to be in favor of a different grounding. If Roe is weakened or overturned, let's test that case on its merits.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize P... by sbov on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @01:30PM (#19210559)
Wouldn't this completely screw over corporations? Or do we have some other mechanisms that will continue to protect them from these abuses them but not other types of "persons"?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize P... by learc83 on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @01:45PM (#19210715)
Corporations in general have the constitutional protections that people acting in a group have. Corporate personhood is just a convenient legal fiction.

For example corporations don't have a right to free speech because they are "persons" but because we extend the rights of the individuals who make up the group to the group itself.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize P... by gowld on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @03:11PM (#19211512)
> we extend the rights

The constitutional basis for that is not secure.

It's not obvious that your right to free speech extends to secretly paying someone else to speak.

If I leave an iPod in a public park playing a speech, the authorities can remove or disable the iPod, not a violation of my speech rights.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize P... by icebraining on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @03:29PM (#19211653)
I'm pretty sure they can also remove you; what they can't do is remove you based on the content of your speech, but then again I doubt they can have a policy of only removing iPods playing political speeches with certain viewpoints.
[ Parent | on HN ]