Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda


It should be obvious that Kerry can't control what pictures the Vietnamese choose to hang in their museums. Do you know if there are pictures of Reagan or Bush in the same museum?

Yes. Their pics are up on the dartboard in the curator's office.

eta: Kerry apoplogised:

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The exclusionary rule is not a "constitutional right." The right is the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule is one way of preserving this right. As a matter of policy, you may be right that, e.g., a system of financial penalties and/or incentives might, on the whole, provide a better mix of results. My point, however, is that if courts leave the question up to the legislature(s) by deferring to whatever system it/they adopt, you may find that legislatures don't wish to spend money to preserve those constitutional rights, and the rights are then effectively extinguished by legislative inaction. A constitutional right that depends on legislative action to be realized is not much of a constitutional right. Analogously, one could suggest that there is no right to compensation for takings except as a legislature sees fit to provide. Conservatives probably find it easier to imagine that the abstract promise of legislative action is not comforting when you put it in that context.

For the record, I'm in favor of the exclusionary rule. Anyone that is not has way to much faith in people, and frankly, I can't believe that any CA Republican would have that faith.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
And actually, other remedies already exist. They're just not very effective.

Surely they could be made more effective. E.g., antitrust actions carry treble damages, to ensure effective deterrence.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
If it were not a constitutional right I think Legislators would have changed it long ago. In other words if the legislators had the power to overturn the courts decision on how to handle illegally seized evidence I think they would have done so. At least after the third Dirty Harry Movie.

Whether it's constitutionally required or not, the Exclusionary Rule is not a "right."

eta:

"If the legislators had the power to overturn the court's decision on how to compensate property owners, they would have gotten rid of the Takings Clause and replaced it with some statute requiring adequate compensation." Does this sound likely to you?

[SlaveNoMore]

Penske_Account
I am meeting the Paigow at Bings. What do you recommend?

eta: more seriously this is a major dilemma! chinese? tex-mex? sushi? pasta? if so, what kind of sauce?!!?!? w/ salad?

Giordanos up the block or Naan & Curry one block down.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
Doesn't seem to be a problem in England. If England can live without the exclusionary rule, why can't we?

Uh, spank, we won the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. And we fought them so that we *didn't* have to give a shit about England anymore.

They also don't have jury trials in criminal cases for the most part. I guess if England can live with that, we can, too, eh?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Uh, spank, we won the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. And we fought them so that we *didn't* have to give a shit about England anymore.

They also don't have jury trials in criminal cases for the most part. I guess if England can live with that, we can, too, eh?

2. OJ taught us this.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Whether it's constitutionally required or not, the Exclusionary Rule is not a "right."

how can the Court make it a requirement then?

Shouldn't it just have said "rights shouldn't be violated and some consequence should attach when they are." When courts start crafting rrules, isn't that kinda sorta legislative?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I find it to be a check on the authority of the state. I thought you were for limited government?

Why are money damages less of a check than the exclusionary rule? Given the number of times it's violated, it's not like cops are giving it the full weight it deserves?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The exclusionary rule is not aimed at protecting the defendant's rights. It's designed to safeguard the people's rights.

Sure, but why is it the best way to protect those rights? What if the rule were that any evidence even if seized unlawfully were admissable, but that the cop(s) who obtained it were automatically discharged and put in jail for a year? (and it didn't require a lawsuit by the defendant, but rather just a motion in court) I'll bet you'd have fewer illegal searches that you do now, and you'd put away the criminal.

[Penske_Account]

more on the buses:

[Ty@50]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
more on the buses:

I am happy to tell you that eventually you collect all your photo shops (the non-porno ones) into a picture book that is a best seller in red state preschools. Congrats!

the publishers do make you keep Teddy and Hil pix out to not "scar" the kids. 10 years later you publish an explicit edition where they're back in.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Ty@50
I am happy to tell you that eventually you collect all your photo shops (the non-porno ones) into a picture book that is a best seller in red state preschools. Congrats!

the publishers do make you keep Teddy and Hil pix out to not "scar" the kids. 10 years later you publish an explicit edition where they're back in.

How old is Ty now? I think some timelines are getting a bit blurry here.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
How old is Ty now? I think some timelines are getting a bit blurry here.

From what I understand he was a prodigy.(net.) Got out of lawschool at 19. You can do the math from there.

[Tyrone Slothrop]