Replies

To reverse this it would mean that the justices would have to admit they were wrong on their original decision, and I just don't see their egos letting them do that.

A real President would have had the involved justices arrested and incarcerated until they saw the error of their ways.

on second thought a butt-smacking from Antonin Scalia would not be the most beneficial thing to one’s career as a jurist

is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,"

What in hell is 'MODERN' Fourth Amendment jurisprudence? Is the Constitution a variable on a day to day basis now? Silly me. Obama and the Marxists don't even recognize its existence.

REVERSE the decision? The proper thing is to IGNORE it!!! Sooner or later a homeowner will take a stand and kill some rogue cop. That’s when all hell will break loose and the leftists on the Indiana SC will be “retired.”

To reverse this it would mean that the justices would have to admit they were wrong on their original decision, and I just don't see their egos letting them do that.

Indiana's Attorney General says he supports a rehearing and that the court's ruling went beyond what his office argued in court. Over 70 lawmakers of the Indiana General Assembly have asked the court to reconsider it's ruling. The justices have to be feeling the heat on this decision.

But there may be no “after the fact” if the homeowner is somehow killed.

Not only incompatible with modern thinking, incompatible since 1789.

Gov. Mitch Daniels and Attorney General Greg Zoeller have publicly questioned the decision.

############

Question hell!!! If they had a set of balls between them they would be filing a suit in federal court to overturn this ruling AND working to remove the three fools who made this ruling.

They ought to be reconsidering...I would have thought the good citizens of Indiana would have already tarred and feathered these idiots. I’m really shocked this happened in Indiana frankly.

ABOUT TIME to reverse this UNAMERICAN ruling!!

To reverse this it would mean that the justices would have to admit they were wrong on their original decision, and I just don't see their egos letting them do that.

Actually that is patently wrong. I will be citing their own ruling, found here, the State's Constitution, the US Constitution and 2 sections of the US Code.

Page 6, 1st Paragraph:

In sum, we hold that Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.

Note that what once was now is not, yet...

Page 4, last paragraph:

The Supreme Court has affirmed this right as recently as 1948. United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 594 (1948) ("One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases.").

Thus, the USSC (which rules on constitutionalities) affirms the right is present; further the case was precisely a 4th Amendment case, from wikipedia "which upheld that the warrantless search of an automobile..." Therefore the 4th, being the subject of the case, must also allow for the exercise of the right to resist an unlawful arrest.

Indiana State Constitution, Art 1, Section 11:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.

Now, seeing that the Indiana Constitution and the 4th Amendment are textually identical (excepting capitalization, I believe only on 'Oath') it must be agreed that the Indiana State Constitution therefore affirms the same right just as the 4th Amendment; and it is therefore obvious that to declare otherwise is either de facto alteration of the State Constitution.

But the State Constitution has this to say about its alteration:
ARTICLE 16, Amendments:

Section 1.
(a) An amendment to this Constitution may be proposed in either branch of the General Assembly. If the amendment is agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses, the proposed amendment shall, with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered on their journals, and referred to the General Assembly to be chosen at the next general election.
(b) If, in the General Assembly so next chosen, the proposed amendment is agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each House, then the General Assembly shall submit the amendment to the electors of the State at the next general election.
(c) If a majority of the electors voting on the amendment ratify the amendment, the amendment becomes a part of this Constitution. (History: As Amended November 3, 1998).
Section 2. If two or more amendments shall be submitted at the same time, they shall be submitted in such manner that the electors shall vote for or against each of such amendments separately.

Now, because the State's Constitution was not amended it is a violation of the 14th Amendment, specifically Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It is now obvious that the State's Supreme Court has indeed deprived the whole of the people of their right to resist an unlawful arrest, and therefore in violation of the 14th Amendment. This is punishable under 18USC241 and 242 which say:

Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

and

Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Now we see that because they acted as a group it fits the definition required for a conspiracy; which is a felony. And Supreme Court Justices may be easily removed for felonies.

Any Indiana freepers know what became of this case? Has it been brushed under the rug?