• floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    2 days ago

    So what they are saying is that “their jurisdiction” is above the constitution. Hopefully you’re as pissed as you should be

    • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 days ago

      Here’s a reminder that packing the 5th circuit court of appeals with batshit conservative judges was a key step in the Southern Strategy. There’s also a county in Texas that only has enough of a population for two judges, and they made sure both of those are also batshit conservative. So any time they want to get a batshit conservative ruling, they just file it in that one specific county in Texas. And then Texas appeals go to the 5th circuit. And any circuit rulings are applied nationally (due to lower courts using precedent to set cases) unless it goes all the way to the SCOTUS. And with the current SCOTUS, they can simply refuse to see the case, and the 5th circuit ruling will stand.

      Lots of times, the court cases are obviously staged. There have been cases where a plaintiff didn’t even realize they were named in a case that ruled for/against them, because the PAC that actually filed the case simply used their name to be able to file it in that county.

    • HubertManne@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      if anyone does not get due process then no one does. The whole point of due process is not allowing law enforcement to be judge, jury, and executioner. Its one of the most important parts of the bill of rights.

        • HubertManne@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          and this goes further into due process. when its ignored with something like a police shooting as far as investigation its equally problematic although unfortunately we don’t have an amendment to deal with that side.

  • Sunflier@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    2 days ago

    No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

    -5th Amendment

    It doesn’t say no citizen. It says no person. So, if Due Process doesn’t apply to them, are they no longer people?

    • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 days ago

      Amendment XIV
      Section 1. [emphasis added]

      All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      it seems if they had to state it twice it was both a problem and important. fuck that it’s a problem again. Also to echo your sentiment, person not citizen.

      • Bakkoda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        “But if they are a criminal…”

        And there it goes. Enough people have no issues whatsoever involving their morals or borrowing a rapist/felons morality and making a case in their head where they are right and the Constitution is wrong. You can go and talk to 100 people and enough are afraid of the bogeyman to cave on constitutional rights.

      • Sunflier@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        That clause is basically what incorporates the bill of rights to apply against the states. Before that Amendment, the BoR just applied against the federal government.

    • HubertManne@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      And that is very much intentional. Due process cannot be denied to anyone or else it effectively applies to no one because they can just identify you as someone who it does not apply to and without due process you cannot prove otherwise.

  • N0t_5ure@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    143
    ·
    2 days ago

    If due process rights don’t exist for immigrants, then they don’t exist for anyone. How can you show you’re not an immigrant without due process?

  • carrotfox@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    2 days ago

    Really just shows what George Carlin said for a long time, there’s no such thing as “rights”. They’re temporary privileges that can be revoked whenever convenient.

    • midribbon_action@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      2 days ago

      That’s a dumb take. Rights are intrinsic to all people, they can’t be taken away, even if they are violated. Everybody experiences various levels of human rights violations, but nobody has fewer rights because of the crimes commited against them.

      • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        Who gave you your rights? Unless you think God did it or nature somehow, rights are a man made construct

    • daannii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 days ago

      First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me

      -Martin Niemoller