Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk

Political Talk Political Talk Forum - Discuss and debate politics


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 27th, 2005, 09:03 AM   #1
The Chief
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Planet Earth (Mostly)
Posts: 14,314
Incredibly Stupid Supreme Court Decision Announced today...

In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that local governments have no constitutional duty to protect from private violence an individual who is shielded by a court's restraining order. Such individuals do not gain an enforceable interest in that protection, the Court declared in an opinion by Justice Scalia. The case was Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (04-27.



This being the case, what is the point of a restraining order?
tadpole256 is offline  
Old June 27th, 2005, 10:46 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
aMFliberal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,917
I guess if you're a believer in small government, being a hypocrite is just something that comes along with it. I'd like Antonin, in all his brilliance, to answer the question you just posed.
aMFliberal is offline  
Old June 27th, 2005, 10:50 AM   #3
The Chief
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Planet Earth (Mostly)
Posts: 14,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by aMFliberal
I guess if you're a believer in small government, being a hypocrite is just something that comes along with it. I'd like Antonin, in all his brilliance, to answer the question you just posed.


I believe in small government, but not non-exsistant. How can a restraining order be issued if there is nothing to back it up? What's the point. I might as well start issuing my own orders, apparently they have as much weight.
tadpole256 is offline  
Old June 27th, 2005, 10:58 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
aMFliberal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,917
Getting a restraining order slapped on you could become like getting a traffic warning...meaningless, certainly not helpful for those that need the protectin of a restraining order.
aMFliberal is offline  
Old August 17th, 2005, 07:42 PM   #5
Member
 
Axiom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 30
It is not so much the incident as it was this lady's lawyer:



The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that a State shall not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Amdt. 14, 1. In 42 U. S. C. 1983, Congress has created a federal cause of action for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." Respondent claims the benefit of this provision on the ground that she had a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband; and that the town deprived her of this property without due process by having a policy that tolerated nonenforcement of restraining orders.



As the Court of Appeals recognized, we left a similar question unanswered in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U. S. 189 (1989), another case with "undeniably tragic" facts: Local child-protection officials had failed to protect a young boy from beatings by his father that left him severely brain damaged. Id., at 191-193. We held that the so-called "substantive" component of the Due Process Clause does not "requir[e] the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors." Id., at 195. We noted, however, that the petitioner had not properly preserved the argument that--and we thus "decline[d] to consider" whether--state "child protection statutes gave [him] an 'entitlement' to receive protective services in accordance with the terms of the statute, an entitlement which would enjoy due process protection." Id., at 195, n. 2.



The procedural component of the Due Process Clause does not protect everything that might be described as a "benefit": "To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire" and "more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it." Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 577 (1972). Such entitlements are " 'of course, ... not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.' " Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693, 709 (1976) (quoting Roth, supra, at 577); see also Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U. S. 156, 164 (199.





http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...8#concurrence1
Axiom is offline  
Old August 18th, 2005, 09:43 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
prescott911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,064
This is just idiotic why the hell would they vote on that??
prescott911 is offline  
Old August 18th, 2005, 07:31 PM   #7
Member
 
Axiom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by prescott911
This is just idiotic why the hell would they vote on that??


I'm not sure I get your question, can you please be more specific?
Axiom is offline  
Old August 18th, 2005, 08:27 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Nebraskaboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,425
I would much rather just get rid of the Supreme Court, they are worthless in my opinion.
Nebraskaboy is offline  
Old August 18th, 2005, 08:37 PM   #9
The Chief
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Planet Earth (Mostly)
Posts: 14,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebraskaboy
I would much rather just get rid of the Supreme Court, they are worthless in my opinion.
That is a HUGE mistake. You need to educate yourself a bit better as to how the government works. The Supreme Court is a VITAL part of the Checks & Balances.
tadpole256 is offline  
Old August 20th, 2005, 05:43 PM   #10
Member
 
Axiom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 30
I'd have to agree with Tadpole on this one. But I will agree that Congress needs to look at keeping these lifetime appointees in check. Continued rulings or statements that are obviously anti-constitutional need to be addressed. It cannot be accpeted when they start legislating instead of interpreting the law's intent.
Axiom is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk

Tags
announced, court, decision, incredibly, stupid, supreme, today



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Sends Proposition 8 to Supreme Court! elmo5159 Gay and Lesbian Rights 1 June 5th, 2012 07:04 PM
Fla. Court Decision Plunges Federal Health Law Into Limbo npr Current Events 0 February 1st, 2011 11:44 AM
Fla. Court Decision Plunges Federal Health Law Into Limbo npr Current Events 0 February 1st, 2011 11:44 AM
'Don't ask, don't tell' decision appealed to Supreme Court Ray Kaye Gay and Lesbian Rights 12 December 3rd, 2010 04:38 PM
Did the Calif. Supreme Ct. Decision Help or Hurt? pride_of_sterling_city Gay and Lesbian Rights 4 June 4th, 2008 02:57 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.