2016 elections - because it's never too early

[CountDeMoney]

Hmmmph. Just read it. There must be something else than "move there"... If there isn't then I can see both parties moving to let more and more powers and jurisdictions go to the individual states.

No system is perfect, but currently the polarization is getting into a feedback loop.

It's not just about economics and jurisdictions;  people are increasingly moving to like-minded areas, to live with people they're comfortable with.  How many French-speaking Quebecois are moving to Calgary these days?

[Fate]

Hmmmph. Just read it. There must be something else than "move there"... If there isn't then I can see both parties moving to let more and more powers and jurisdictions go to the individual states.

No system is perfect, but currently the polarization is getting into a feedback loop.

It's not just about economics and jurisdictions;  people are increasingly moving to like-minded areas, to live with people they're comfortable with.  How many French-speaking Quebecois are moving to Calgary these days?

It's not that simple. Plenty of liberals are moving to red country. Migration to Virginia and Colorado have shifted those states from red, to purple, and probably after this cycle we will probably call them reliably blue.

Similar things are happening in North Carolina and Georgia.

[CountDeMoney]

Hmmmph. Just read it. There must be something else than "move there"... If there isn't then I can see both parties moving to let more and more powers and jurisdictions go to the individual states.

No system is perfect, but currently the polarization is getting into a feedback loop.

It's not just about economics and jurisdictions;  people are increasingly moving to like-minded areas, to live with people they're comfortable with.  How many French-speaking Quebecois are moving to Calgary these days?

It's not that simple. Plenty of liberals are moving to red country. Migration to Virginia and Colorado have shifted those states from red, to purple, and probably after this cycle we will probably call them reliably blue.

Similar things are happening in North Carolina and Georgia.

I didn't say it was that simple.  But thanks anyway.

[Barrister]

First we have this thing in the US called the 4th amendment and it remains unexplained how a warrant presumably directed to Weiner's texts to an underage girl captured emails about the Secretary of State.  Last I checked HRC was above the age of consent and i doubt Anthony was sexting her.

First, Hillary has no reasonable expectation of privacy for emails that are on Weiner's (or Abedin's) computers. 

Second, if the warrant was validly granted and properly limited police are always able to seize evidence of other crimes even if it wasn't what they were specifically looking for.  You execute a drug warrant and you find a dead body, police don't just ignore the dead body.

Look, maybe there's an issue with the original warrant.  I've done enough search warrant cases to know there's no guarantees.  But I don't know how Hillary every gets past the issue of standing.

[CountDeMoney]

Thanks for that fantastic legal observation from another fucking country, Marti.

[jimmy olsen]

These emails weren't from or to Clinton, so what was the fucking point of this all?

[11B4V]

These emails weren't from or to Clinton, so what was the fucking point of this all?

Really?

[CountDeMoney]

THEY DIDNT EVEN HAVE STAMPS ON THEM

[Barrister]

Thanks for that fantastic legal observation from another fucking country, Marti.

It's all common law, baby. 

It's not like I started citing R v Garafoli - it's pretty basic principles at play here.

[CountDeMoney]

Thanks for that fantastic legal observation from another fucking country, Marti.

It's all common law, baby. 

It's not like I started citing R v Garafoli - it's pretty basic principles at play here.

You don't even have a J.D., man.

[alfred russel]

Thanks for that fantastic legal observation from another fucking country, Marti.

It's all common law, baby. 

It's not like I started citing R v Garafoli - it's pretty basic principles at play here.

The fourth amendment is a part of common law?

[The Minsky Moment]

First, Hillary has no reasonable expectation of privacy for emails that are on Weiner's (or Abedin's) computers. 

Second, if the warrant was validly granted and properly limited police are always able to seize evidence of other crimes even if it wasn't what they were specifically looking for.  You execute a drug warrant and you find a dead body, police don't just ignore the dead body.

Look, maybe there's an issue with the original warrant.  I've done enough search warrant cases to know there's no guarantees.  But I don't know how Hillary every gets past the issue of standing.

HRC reasonable expectation of privacy is irrelevant. Her standing is irrelevant.  This isn't an exclusionary rule issue and it never will be because no case will be brought .

The issue is that warrants are supposed to be narrowly drawn and executed. If an entire laptop is nonethleless seized (for "convenience") the agents aren't supposed to be looking at non pertinent files.   It's not like a "plain sight" or incidental discovery exception because there is no good reason to have been looking at abedin's files in the first place to make the incidental discovery.

[Barrister]

First, Hillary has no reasonable expectation of privacy for emails that are on Weiner's (or Abedin's) computers. 

Second, if the warrant was validly granted and properly limited police are always able to seize evidence of other crimes even if it wasn't what they were specifically looking for.  You execute a drug warrant and you find a dead body, police don't just ignore the dead body.

Look, maybe there's an issue with the original warrant.  I've done enough search warrant cases to know there's no guarantees.  But I don't know how Hillary every gets past the issue of standing.

HRC reasonable expectation of privacy is irrelevant. Her standing is irrelevant.  This isn't an exclusionary rule issue and it never will be because no case will be brought .

The issue is that warrants are supposed to be narrowly drawn and executed. If an entire laptop is nonethleless seized (for "convenience") the agents aren't supposed to be looking at non pertinent files.   It's not like a "plain sight" or incidental discovery exception because there is no good reason to have been looking at abedin's files in the first place to make the incidental discovery.

I agree the issues here are more likely political than legal.

So why are you arguing about exclusionary rules (warrants are to be narrowly drawn and executed)?

[Barrister]

Thanks for that fantastic legal observation from another fucking country, Marti.

It's all common law, baby. 

It's not like I started citing R v Garafoli - it's pretty basic principles at play here.

The fourth amendment is a part of common law?

The US is not the only country with laws against unreasonable search and seizure.  Hell it can all be traced back to the magna carta.

[Zoupa]

Hmmmph. Just read it. There must be something else than "move there"... If there isn't then I can see both parties moving to let more and more powers and jurisdictions go to the individual states.

No system is perfect, but currently the polarization is getting into a feedback loop.

It's not just about economics and jurisdictions;  people are increasingly moving to like-minded areas, to live with people they're comfortable with.  How many French-speaking Quebecois are moving to Calgary these days?

But that's my point. A feedback loop of like-minded people living in the same states. If you go towards a more decentralized system like in Canada, with a weaker federal government, eventually you could get secession.

Which I'd be all for but that's neither here nor there