ADVERTISEMENT

And once again, Conservatives wipe their butts with the Fourth Amendment.

Syskatine

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Oct 14, 2018
15,515
8,954
113
But muh freedoms! Nice way to totally ignore the 4th Amendment.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that Border Patrol agents are generally shielded from lawsuits that allege the use of excessive force, the latest in a series of decisions narrowing the legal avenue for alleged victims of abuse by federal officers.

The 6-3 ruling, penned by Justice Clarence Thomas, broke along ideological lines, with the court’s conservatives comprising a majority over the dissent of the court’s three liberals.

The case concerned whether a lawsuit should be allowed to move forward against a Border Patrol agent accused of using excessive force during his search of an inn located just south of the U.S.-Canada border.

The conservative majority, citing national security concerns, declined to extend a judge-made rule that allows plaintiffs to sue federal officers for certain constitutional violations. That relief, based on a precedent set by Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, is generally disfavored by judicial conservatives.

“Because matters intimately related to foreign policy and national security are rarely proper subjects for judicial intervention,” Thomas wrote, “we reaffirm that a Bivens cause of action may not lie where, as here, national security is at issue.”

The dispute decided Wednesday arose in 2014 when Customs and Border Patrol Agent Erik Egbert entered the property of an inn located in Blaine, Wash., near the U.S.-Canada border, and refused to leave after a request from innkeeper Robert Boule and despite having no search warrant. Boule alleges that Egbert shoved him, which prompted Boule to lodge a complaint with Egbert’s supervisors. According to Boule’s account, Egbert later retaliated by asking the IRS to investigate Boule. Boule sued, alleging violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court has allowed civil suits for monetary damages over alleged constitutional violations to proceed against federal officers in only a limited set of circumstances since its 1971 decision in the Bivens case, which also involved alleged excessive force.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Marocain Poke
Fvck illegal aliens and those who assist them. Don’t like the way you’re treated here? Stay in your own fvckin’ country.

There ya go -- conservatives are all about freedom. Except for allowing the government to barge into American businesses and search and assault the citizenry. We used to fight wars to prevent that, now they celebrate it. My, how conservatism has changed.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Marocain Poke
There ya go -- conservatives are all about freedom. Except for allowing the government to barge into American businesses and search and assault the citizenry. We used to fight wars to prevent that, now they celebrate it. My, how conservatism has changed.
Excellent point. Now we finance wars to protect foreign governments that do the same thing. It's outrageous in both cases, don't you agree?
 
There ya go -- conservatives are all about freedom. Except for allowing the government to barge into American businesses and search and assault the citizenry. We used to fight wars to prevent that, now they celebrate it. My, how conservatism has changed.

It was 2014.
 
There ya go -- conservatives are all about freedom. Except for allowing the government to barge into American businesses and search and assault the citizenry. We used to fight wars to prevent that, now they celebrate it. My, how conservatism has changed.
If you’re helping illegal invaders, then it is a war, not a criminal justice matter. That is the gist of the ruling.
 
Where on earth is this vibrant democracy of which you speak?
Ukraine. They've had multiple free and fair democratic elections after throwing off the yoke of Soviet/Russian authoritarianism.

I suppose we should all allow Russia to invade and oppress whoever Putin wants?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: soonerinlOUisiana
Ukraine. They've had multiple free and fair democratic elections after throwing off the yoke of Soviet/Russian authoritarianism.

I suppose we should all allow Russia to invade and oppress whoever Putin wants?
You're talking about the vibrant democracy that shuts down opposition media outlets, imprisons its political opponents, has its right-wing goons disappear people, has a world class corruption standard? That vibrant democracy?
 
Last edited:
You're talking about the vibrant democracy that shuts down opposition medai outlets, imprisons its political opponents, has its right-wing goons disappear people, has a world class corruption standard? That vibrant democracy?
Now do Russia.
 
Ukraine. They've had multiple free and fair democratic elections after throwing off the yoke of Soviet/Russian authoritarianism.

I suppose we should all allow Russia to invade and oppress whoever Putin wants?
By the way, tell us how they "threw off the yoke of Soviet/Russian authoritarianism." It was 2014 if memory serves.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT