Skip to main content

View Diary: President Obama addresses Trayvon Martin killing (335 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  14th Amendment (2+ / 0-)

    -Disparate impact of the law affecting people of color as victims and as defendants

    - Date demonstrating this impact differs by race for both defendants and victims

    •  You have to have a Plaintiff (2+ / 0-)

      who is "injured" by the law -- whether physically or disparate impact.  The Plaintiff would neither be the President nor anyone in the DOJ.

      The DOJ certainly has prosecutorial authority to enforce the federal laws on behalf of the U.S.  

      " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:38:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think finding a plaintiff would be hard in (2+ / 0-)

        this case. Do you?

        •  The DOJ doesnt represent Plaintiffs! (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gchaucer2, Pi Li, Dr Swig Mcjigger

          The DOJ only has one client:  the United States of America.

          A plaintiff that could show harm would have to hire their OWN LAWYER and try this case on civil grounds.  

          You are referencing a CIVIL action, not a CRIMINAL action.  

          Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

          by Wisper on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:51:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Never said they did (0+ / 0-)

            This is getting tiresome. Go trol someone else.

          •  By your logic (0+ / 0-)

            so people can understand, the President should never have supported DOMA or other legal actions brought by private individuals

            Clearly this is a dishonest rebuttal

            •  I have no idea what this means. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pi Li

              The point was that this is NOT an issue for the President of DOJ.  If you think there is a civil claim based on the 14th amendment or anything else, then sure.... any American citizen can try to show how they were harmed by this and bring a lawsuit against the State.

              But this is NOT what the DOJ does. That is simply NOT how the system works.

              Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

              by Wisper on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 12:07:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Here (0+ / 0-)
                In January 2012, the Department of Justice got involved in the case. Contrary to what might be expected, the DOJ was not supporting the police department – instead, it filed a "Statement of Interest" in support of Sharp's position in the case, stating:
                This litigation presents constitutional questions of great moment in this digital age: whether private citizens have a First Amendment right to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties, and whether officers violate citizens' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they seize and destroy such recordings without a warrant or due process. The United States urges this Court to answer both of those questions in the affirmative. The right to record police officers while performing duties in a public place, as well as the right to be protected from the warrantless seizure and destruction of those recordings, are not only required by the Constitution. They are consistent with our fundamental notions of liberty, promote the accountability of our governmental officers, and instill public confidence in the police officers who serve us daily.

                Like the DOMA case, a private plaintiff filed, but the DOJ supported the plaintiff with the court. The case involved the 14th Amendment.

          •  First year law 101 (0+ / 0-)

            Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

            by Pi Li on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 01:21:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Equal Protection has to be the weakest (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pi Li

      argument against SYG.  Have fun getting this actively affirmed by the Federal Bench.

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:49:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  By your logic, there should be no (0+ / 0-)

        disparate impact cases or public accomodation or any case law like that

        So I am going to go on a limb and say you are talking out of your ass

        You also play a game at the end with the fact tha the courts are packed with conserevatives as to whether that means the argument is valid

        It is. But it would require the president to use political capital to do it

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site