this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
588 points (98.5% liked)
Not The Onion
11843 readers
503 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This would be a clear violation of ones first amendment right. Say it's your religion.
The courts have already set the precedent that there are preferred religions and religions that do not enjoy the same rights because the judges don't believe in them. Our legal system is corrupt and unjust. We cannot count on the courts to protect our rights.
Oh just call the TST for this one, even the constitutional literalists cant weasel their way out of that one.
They can, as they already have. There is no guarantee that their decisions will be consistent or intellectually sincere.
Yeah, and for some reason people are just ignoring the blatantly obvious inconsistency. It’s crazy.
Not...really? Not in this context, anyways.
You cannot compel a person to remove their hijab, anywhere in the US, for example.
The police can and do, which is what they are enforcing here
Yes cops are bad. We all know. You don't fight cops at your arrest for justice. You fight in the court.
You're missing the point entirely.
Jfc room temp IQs in this thread.
You don’t win fights against cops in court. Best case scenario, the public pays the cost to cover your suit.
But your point was that people have rights in the US. My point is a right on paper but at the discretion of the police, is in practice, not a right.
As I said, you've missed the point entirely.
Then what is the point?
I've said all I care to say. You're being willfully ignorant. I don't care to speak with you any further.
No, you just never had a point
Ok. Bye.
You are missing the point about the courts.
🙄 no u
Qualified immunity called me while you wrote this. It didn't say anything, it was too busy laughing.
That isn't what qualified immunity is or does.
Qualified immunity more or less means that the cops can't be held directly liable for something that the courts haven't yet found to be wrong for a police officer to do while in the course of their duties. So, if a cop does something obviously wrong and fucked up in the course of their duties (like, say, detaining you in a car parked on railroad tracks) and you suffer injuries from it, but a court hasn't previously found that exact situation to be a wrong thing for a police officer to do, qualified immunity prevents them from being held personally accountable. The next person who gets detained on railroad tracks is covered, but you're shit outta luck.
I know what QI is about, the comment has more to do with fighting the cops in court when courts meet all manner of egregious police behavior with little more than stern finger wags and exasperated sighs at best (often. Very rarely, they actually do get held accountable) and endorsement at worst.
Replied to wrong post. Nothing to see here. Move along
clears throat it's your religion.
Ok, what's the next step?