Stop And Frisk: What the Supreme Court has Ruled


Tellingly, however, the former Secretary of State didn’t bother to name a Supreme Court case that found stop and frisk violated any amendment of the Constitution. That’s because there isn’t: the case that definitively ruled on the matter, 1968’s Terry v. Ohio, found that law enforcement does have a right to stop people and search them if they determine a credible threat exists.

No, what Hillary is basing her opinion on isn’t a Supreme Court case at all, but on her own misunderstanding of the theories of a radical, anti-police activist judge.

Judge Shira Scheindlin is notorious for being the only judge to ever rule against stop and frisk. There is a reason for this: her reasoning does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny, which is exactly why her rulings have been appealed so many times. Yet for all her opposition to the practice, Scheindlin never once, whether in court or out of court, said the practice was unconstitutional.

Got that?

So basically, Hillary has taken an even more extreme stance on stop and frisk than the one judge to rule against it:

“Scheindlin has been repeatedly reversed—unanimously—by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on cases involving police authority, and even terrorism. She has demonstrated such extraordinary bias as a judicial activist on this issue that the federal appeals court took the extremely rare action of ordering her removed from the case.

But her removal was not before she issued a decision declaring that stop-and-frisk was unconstitutional the way it was being implemented. Note that even Scheindlin would not say it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s Terry case would make her a laughingstock if she took that position (which is the position that Hillary Clinton took in the debate). But Scheindlin said it was being applied in an unconstitutional manner that focused too heavily on blacks and Hispanics.

Many legal experts expected the Second Circuit to smack down Scheindlin yet again. But then de Blasio was elected, and he withdrew the appeal from the Second Circuit before they could rule on the case and announced he was ending stop-and-frisk.

So the Supreme Court says Clinton is wrong, and even an ultra-left judicial activist would not go as far as Clinton’s false claim during her debate against Trump.

But with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, unless Trump wins in November, Clinton will have the power to remake the Supreme Court in her own image, taking it far to the left of even 1968, and completely reinterpret the Fourth Amendment—along with the rest of the Constitution.”

Source: Breitbart

Photo: Opednews



Share

23 Comments

Leave a Reply

Pin It on Pinterest