Posted on 10/31/2013 3:03:30 PM PDT by jimbo123
She’s out!
A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked Manhattan federal Judge Shira Scheindlin’s controversial ruling requiring restrictions on the use of stop-and-frisk by cops but didn’t stop there — the three-judge panel also took the extraordinary step of booting her from the case altogether.
In a scathing rebuke, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that Scheindlin exhibited bias in the case that ran “afoul” of the code of conduct for US judges.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Especially when the overt purpose seems to be to deprive people of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Perhaps the judge was guilty of some misbehavior. I have no idea. But the judge's decision seems right on to me.
Frankly, I could care less about the profiling aspect of stop & frisk. I don’t care if they are stopping people because they are black, hispanic, or wearing the wrong clothes.
I care about this because there is one—and only one—reason that police officers should be stopping people on the street: because they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in (or will imminently be involved in) criminal activity. Given the sheer number of people who are stopped under this program every year, combined with the relatively low arrest/summons rate resulting from stop & frisk stops, it is clear to me that the stop and frisk program systematically violates the “reasonable suspicion” standard.
To put it another way (if this makes any sense), my concern is not that the NYPD is stopping people for the wrong reasons (e.g., profiling), but rather that the NYPD is NOT stopping people for the right reason (e.g., reasonable suspicion).
It is a gross expansion of police authority (and it is by no means the only one), which is why I think any conservative ought to be concerned.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is the direct prodigy of the Communist Party USA’s legal front, the National Lawyers Guild (NLG). It was created in the 1960’s as the Law Center for Constitutional Rights in order to attract young radicals and liberals into the Civil Rights movement.
It was created, in part, by old CPUSA members and supporters (or covert members) including William Kunstler, Arthur Kinoy, possibly Morton Stavis (CPUSA), etc.
CCR’s leaders have included avowed marxist fanatic Michael Ratner (registered attorney for Cuba, and a very good lawyer). There is a lot of information on them at www.keywiki.org and www.DiscoverTheNetwork.org, as well as in the private publication “Information Digest” (not readily available to the public except as excerpts in articles).
The are THE major marxist legal force in the fight for expanded illegal immigrant rights, as well as in the fight to stop the deportation of extremists (The LA 8 case, among others).
CCR member David Cole is a professor of law at Georgetown University Law School, and Ratner reportedly teaches or taught at NYU Law School.
CCR is an extremely dangerous marxist, anti-American legal organization and force that has been wreaking havoc on our law enforcement agencies and policies for decades. With Holder at AG, the CCR acts as one of his adjunct private arms on immigration, the Patriot Act, etc.
Forewarned is forearmed.
I have to say that I am surprised at this ruling after the debacle of the video of the motorcycle riding cops participating in the racial attack against the Asian family in the SUV. I think that the video clip speaks directly to the quality and judgement of NYC police officers. I just don’t know that they can be trusted with so much authority as is granted under stop and frisk.
I would be interested in the crime statistics starting the day when stop and frisk was outlawed until it was reinstated.
In NYC? Hell they should tackle and strip 'em nude.
blatantly unconstitutional.....
Already upheld.
but i guess that there pesky ol’ constitution thingie is just a guideline, eehhhh????
Gangbanging scum with felonies have constitutional rights?
Last night on Hannity, Giuliani provided impressive stats regarding the reduction in murders that primarily involve Black-on-Black crimes. Stop-n-Frisk is just one tool in the package of measures used to realize the results.
So if the issue is about liberty, is it reasonable to deny law abiding citizens the right to arms while not doing anything proactive to prevent criminals from carrying? If the first step towards statism is outlawing guns, is the second step of Stop-n-Frisk any worse than the first?
I’d bet $1000 I wouldn’t get stop&frisked while wearing a burkha...
I get your point but PC has diluted the word ‘profiling’ to the point of impotence. (in the US anyway)
Sure...but the possible violation of constitutional rights always has to be balanced with the right of the public to a reasonable expectation of safety. The constitution is not a suicide pact. What would invalidate the stop and frisk laws? If they found that there was no diminution of crime. Since there was a sizable decrease in crime, it proves the s and f laws were justified.
1) There was a drop in crime, yes, but there were other cities that saw equally large drops in crime without stop and frisk. Also, the NYPD implemented and improved other programs at the same time it was implementing stop and frisk. So, it’s hard/impossible to determine the extent to which stop and frisk lowered crime.
2) By your logic, it seems that any effective program would be constitutional. That’s simply not the case.
That's a pretty serious rebuke. Will she get the impeachment that she deserves?
No bet, because your right.. yuck
It was never the policy of the NYPD under "stop search and frisk" to stop or question anyone without a legal reason to do so, nor was that alleged in the case under discussion here, Floyd v. New York. That case was essentially a racial profiling case; plaintiffs central argument was not that the detentions were unconstitutional, but that black and hispanic men were unfairly targeted.
Addressing your point, had the NYPD detained anyone without reasonable suspicion, that certainly would have violated the 4th amendment, which point had been adjudicated in 1968 in terry v. ohio. What NYPD had been doing was applying the Terry standard: when an officer observed, say, a guy rattling the doorknob of someone's apartment, he was instructed to do his job. Question the guy, perhaps do a quick "Terry Search" of his outer garments, determine if the individual was up to no good, or merely making sure his own door was locked. (That was actually one of the plaintiff's stories in the present case, Floyd v. New York.)
I realize that's not as good a story as painting the NYPD as a bunch of jackbooted thugs going around acting like the Gestapo demanding of the citizenry "YOUR PAPERS!", but, occasionally it's good to let reality intrude into the Libertarian/Socon policing wars.
ALL police academies and the FBI promote and teach profiling. If a bank was robbed by a black man, who would dare say that they should be looking for a white man? Duh.
Stop and frisk is unconstitutional PERIOD. The cops would love to examine everyone’s home also if they had their way. This is why DUI and “Safety “ roadblocks are so popular with the police. They are for the most part incompetent bullies with a small dick syndrome.
My cousin...:)
We all have rights.....
Selectively applying or denying them reeks of marxism......
Period
Many American cities with large populations of Blacks and Hispanics have huge amounts of crime due to those groups. But every area is not necessarily the same. El Paso, which has an overwhelmingly high percentage of Hispanics, has a very low murder rate. Stop and Frisk is not necessary in El Paso.
What are the rights of the people who are not committing large amounts of crime? Are they supposed to live in fear and danger from the criminal element because the latter's constitutional rights are supposedly being violated? I think not.
Okay, I’ll make sure to be extra nice to you, then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.