WASHINGTON – A deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the family of a Mexican teen shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol agent cannot seek damages because of the border that was between them.
The justices ruled 5-4 that 15-year-old Sergio Adrian Hernández Guereca lacked constitutional protection against the use of excessive force because he was in Mexico. Had he been in Texas with Border Patrol agent Jesus Mesa, his family would have had a claim.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion and was joined by the court's four other conservatives. The four liberal justices dissented.
"A cross-border shooting claim has foreign relations and national security implications," Alito said. "In addition, Congress has been notably hesitant to create claims based on allegedly tortious conduct abroad."
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissent for her liberal colleagues. She said the shooting occurred on the U.S. side of the border, so the majority's concern about applying the law abroad should not apply.
"Neither U. S. foreign policy nor national security is in fact endangered by the litigation," Ginsburg said. "Moreover, concerns attending the application of our law to conduct occurring abroad are not involved, for plaintiffs seek the application of U. S. law to conduct occurring inside our borders."
The case had been watched closely because of President Donald Trump's efforts to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and to reduce both legal and illegal immigration. Hundreds of incidents involving deadly force occur along the border every year.
Border Patrol agents in New Mexico trained recently to respond to hostile crowds throwing rocks at a border fence on the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Supreme Court in 1971 gave private citizens an implied right to sue federal officials for civil rights violations, even though Congress had passed no such law. But Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, wrote Tuesday that the precedent should be overruled.
Here’s what Russia’s 2020 disinformation operations look like, according to two experts on social media and propaganda. By DARREN LINVILL & PATRICK WARREN Internet trolls don’t troll. Not the professionals at least. Professional trolls don’t go on social media to antagonize liberals or belittle conservatives. They are not narrow minded, drunk or angry. They don’t lack basic English language skills. They certainly aren’t “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds,” as the president once put it. Your stereotypical trolls do exist on social media, but the amateurs aren’t a threat to Western democracy. Professional trolls, on the other hand, are the tip of the spear in the new digital, ideological battleground. To combat the threat they pose, we must first understand them — and take them seriously. MORE: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russia-troll-2020-election-interference-twitter-916482/ Posted by Jamie B.
The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term (Photo: Photos: Getty Images) Americans will almost certainly go to bed on Nov. 3 without knowing who won the presidential election. Since millions of people will vote by mail, constraints on time and resources will slow ballot counting into potentially a weeks-long process. Voting patterns suggest it’s likely that President Donald Trump could end Election Day in the lead in certain key states, only to be overtaken by Democratic opponent Joe Biden when more votes are tallied. This could create a nightmare scenario during the three months stretching from Election Day to the Jan. 20 inauguration: a battle on the state and congressional level over who is the legitimate winner. This could include Congress reconvening on Jan. 6, presided over by Vice President Mike Pence , with no consensus over its potential role in choosing the next president. This is arguably the most likely of th
Here is an interesting question in my list of philosophical questions: 1.) Should governments have penalties for those who live unhealthy lifestyles? A list of unhealthy lifestyles would include things like smoking, drinking, illegal drugs, prostitution, and other “vice” type activities. I guess the “government penalties” would be referring to monetary punishments, withholding medical treatments (insurance companies would love that), possibly imposing/regulating very high (exorbitant) prices on things considered unhealthy in order to cut down on their use, and other possibilities. 2.) Or, would you say that living an unhealthy lifestyle, likely resulting in a LOT of eventual personal pain and suffering, should be punishment enough for unhealthy lifestyles? When people make bad choices in life, often in their youth where ignorance and immediate gratification takes them over, 3.) Should a society be obligated to help "fix" them, by way of tax money? Is that part of
Comments
Post a Comment