or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily CE Musings of Piob - Page 305

post #4561 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Well, you know what they say? In life 'Turk's butthurt is everything.
It is known.
post #4562 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Something like that. Sometimes skinning a cat is illegal, period. But maybe in some jurisdictions you're allowed to skin a dead cat but not a live one. Or your cat but not your neighbor's. I have no idea what happens if your neighbor is Schoedinger.

More concretely, the fact that some methods employed by public universities to diversify (a slippery term, obviously) their student bodies pass Constitutional muster and others don't seems unremarkable. The way the Court analyzes those situations and the way it analyzes abortion restrictions (some of which it has upheld in the past) aren't really comparable - especially not at the simplistic level suggested in this threak. There's a reason -- even beyond billable hours -- Supreme Court briefs and opinions are generally longer than a snarky meme-ish sentence. The only things that really connect the admissions decision and the abortion decision are timing and Turk's butthurt.

Except that the court (supposedly) puts a higher burden on the government to show that racial discrimination is necessary than it does for abortion restrictions.
post #4563 of 5110
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Except that the court (supposedly) puts a higher burden on the government to show that racial discrimination is necessary than it does for abortion restrictions.

In both cases the members of the court all voted in a predictable fashion and the outcome was solely due to the make up of the court. Roberts excluded in this thought as he continues to be a wildcard (in my uninformed opinion.)
post #4564 of 5110
Did they though?

Kennedy switched sides from the last big affirmative action decision...
post #4565 of 5110
Thread Starter 
Sorry, as noted above, I'm off my game today. I meant Kennedy.
post #4566 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Except that the court (supposedly) puts a higher burden on the government to show that racial discrimination is necessary than it does for abortion restrictions.
And? Those "burdens" don't exist in the abstract.

SCOTUS has held that having a diverse student population at a public university is a legitimate goal, and the particular admission scheme at issue in Fisher case was found to be an actual, reasonable means of furthering that goal and thus evaluated in that context.

I haven't read the abortion case, but my understand (just based on headlines, basically, so somebody can correct me if I'm mistaken) is that the Court that Texas' purported justification of medical safety bore bore little actual, reasonable connection to the restrictions at issue and thus evaluated those restrictions in that context.
post #4567 of 5110
Great decision in Birchfield, an implied consent blood test DUI case. This will mess with a lot of jurisdictions' DUI laws that hold a refusal automatically puts someone in the highest tier for criminal punishments. Doesn't look like it will affect civil penalties (like license suspensions) but they can't automatically assign you longer jail terms or higher fines because of it.

The fallout on this could be awesome for the next six months until legislatures get their heads out of their asses.
post #4568 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

Great decision in Birchfield, an implied consent blood test DUI case. This will mess with a lot of jurisdictions' DUI laws that hold a refusal automatically puts someone in the highest tier for criminal punishments. Doesn't look like it will affect civil penalties (like license suspensions) but they can't automatically assign you longer jail terms or higher fines because of it.

The fallout on this could be awesome for the next six months until legislatures get their heads out of their asses.


They held implied consent for breath tests though, right?  So MN blood test was struck down, but not its breath test.  That means, if I'm pulled over, I can refuse a blood test but not a breath test?

post #4569 of 5110
It appears so, the courts can't automatically impose criminal penalties for refusing a blood test. Most places have been gradually switching to blood tests because they're far more accurate.

In most places you can always refuse the roadside portable breath test without any penalty. Looks like they can still forcibly get a blood test with a warrant. As always, check with a local attorney before driving drunk to be sure.
post #4570 of 5110
My understanding is here in Austin they would do "no refusal" weekends that would automatically allow a police officer to administer a blood test if you refused the breath test. I believe this ruling would no longer allow them to do so and the police officer would be forced to get a warrant before administering a blood test.

What I am not clear about is if this will change anything besides the need for a warrant. If they can still bring you in and toss you into a cell, then really this just delays things until a warrant is obtained. Harve as both a lawyer and drunkard, is this correct or am I missing something?
post #4571 of 5110
You're missing that courts can't impose additional criminal penalties for blood refusal. Following the federal extortion to lower BAC to .08 most states adopted a tiered approach and a refusal was automatically treated as a highest rate. This means for a first offense jail time, whereas a .08 often suffered no jail time. It also means higher fines. In many jurisdictions the highest rate disqualifies you from pre-trial diversion programs.

It won't affect license suspensions, as those are usually held to be civil rather than criminal penalties. But where do courts put refusals now if you can't suffer criminal penalties for simply refusing? The lowest tier? Maybe. It remains to be seen.
post #4572 of 5110
Thread Starter 
In some states they train cops as vampire and just get a warrant on the phone so you're getting a blood draw roadside.
post #4573 of 5110
Thread Starter 
LOL. So someone would decide what weekend the Constitution doesn't work and which weekends it would?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jr Mouse View Post

My understanding is here in Austin they would do "no refusal" weekends that would automatically allow a police officer to administer a blood test if you refused the breath test. I believe this ruling would no longer allow them to do so and the police officer would be forced to get a warrant before administering a blood test.

What I am not clear about is if this will change anything besides the need for a warrant. If they can still bring you in and toss you into a cell, then really this just delays things until a warrant is obtained. Harve as both a lawyer and drunkard, is this correct or am I missing something?
post #4574 of 5110
I've had several chats with Harvey over time about the fact that the real issue is they keep wanting to lower and lower the BAC and eventually it will get to the point that a fully grown man will be considered "intoxicated" after a single beer. This leads to police spending their time arresting and processing soccer moms who had a couple glasses of wine at happy hour instead of focusing on catching the severely intoxicated. I believe I read once that the vast majority of alcohol related traffic accidents and fatalities are caused from individuals near double the national legal limits.

Police are a resource, just like anything. There is only a finite amount of police to deal with these issues. These low BAC's spread their resources thin and if they really want to save lives then perhaps lawmakers should take a realistic look at how their resources are being used.

That and maybe stop kicking Uber and Lyft out of cities like Austin, since it's near impossible to get a cab at night. cloud.gif
post #4575 of 5110
Thread Starter 
That's not quite how I read this. They don't necessarily want to arrest said soccer moms but they want the ability to arrest said soccer mom, plus more likely, the person that just looks like he/she is guilty of something but really only has a trace of alcohol in their system. This is going to be like pulling over a car full of young black men because a tail light is out. It's not about the tail light but rather about the excuse to have an interaction where some kind of low level violation paints a mask of legitimacy on this farce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jr Mouse View Post

I've had several chats with Harvey over time about the fact that the real issue is they keep wanting to lower and lower the BAC and eventually it will get to the point that a fully grown man will be considered "intoxicated" after a single beer. This leads to police spending their time arresting and processing soccer moms who had a couple glasses of wine at happy hour instead of focusing on catching the severely intoxicated. I believe I read once that the vast majority of alcohol related traffic accidents and fatalities are caused from individuals near double the national legal limits.

Police are a resource, just like anything. There is only a finite amount of police to deal with these issues. These low BAC's spread their resources thin and if they really want to save lives then perhaps lawmakers should take a realistic look at how their resources are being used.

That and maybe stop kicking Uber and Lyft out of cities like Austin, since it's near impossible to get a cab at night. cloud.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob