Irony
Irony
The Supreme Court decision has nothing to do with guns or confiscation of guns- IT HAD TO DO WITH NOT HAVING A MANDATORY PROPER WARRANT TO ENTER A RESIDENCE!
HOW IS THIS A BLOW TO THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION?
WHAT AN IDIOT FOR OVERTHINKING THIS AND TRYING TO MAKE IT SOMETHING IT IS NOT!
THIS IS WHY OPIE IS SUCH AN IDIOT!
AProudLefty (05-18-2021), christiefan915 (05-18-2021)
Why would we care what some lady had to say?
What Christiecrite left out:
Who fact-checks Snopes?
Did Snopes rule on ABC News, Christiecrite?
Did Snopes rule on the Providence Journal, Christiecrite?
Did Snopes rule on the Washington Post, Christiecrite?
Who fact checks Snopes or any other sites? Intelligent people.
None of those headlines or articles implied what the OP claims, that this was a Biden-centered issue.
ABC News headline: High court mulls police power to enter homes without warrant
The Providence Journal headline: Cranston police seized a man's guns in 2015. What the U.S. Supreme Court heard about it in 2021:
The Washington Post headline: Supreme Court struggles with when police may enter home for safety checks or suicide threats
As opposed to these headlines:
The Conservative Brief headline: Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Biden Administration On Gun Seizure Case
Forbes headline: Biden Administration Urges Supreme Court To Let Cops Enter Homes And Seize Guns Without A Warrant
Washington Examiner headline: Biden administration will tell Supreme Court that police can confiscate guns from homes without a warrant
It was the typical RW phoniness of seeing correlation but claiming causation, just to get in a cheap shot at Biden. The administration filed an amicus brief; it wasn't their case to be ruled against.
There were more than ten hyperlinks in the Snopes piece so if you or anyone else need more info, read them.
“What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
― Charles Dickens
AProudLefty (05-18-2021)
"The Biden administration is urging the court to side with the officers."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/high-court-mulls-police-power-enter-homes-warrant-76661330
Cranston received backing from the U.S. Department of Justice.
Morgan L. Ratner, assistant to the solicitor general, argued that often there is no warrant process for duties such as safeguarding elderly adults and conducting wellness checks. Entry without a warrant should be justified in cases when people are at serious risk of harm in a current and ongoing crisis and the actions are reasonable to address the potential risk, she said.
https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/courts/2021/03/24/us-supreme-court-takes-up-2015-gun-seizure-cranston-police/6980345002/
The Justice Department was supporting the city in saying police had the right to make such checks. Its lawyer Morgan L. Ratner said the case was different from the court’s other Fourth Amendment inquires.
“The question is not act now or get a warrant first. It’s act now or not at all,” she said. “That’s because there is no warrant process in a lot of these non-investigatory situations, from welfare checks on elderly residents to intervention in current suicide threats.”
Ratner added that the key principle “is if someone is at risk of serious harm, and it’s reasonable for officials to intervene now, that is enough.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-police-warrants/2021/03/24/38bb9ed2-8cda-11eb-9423-04079921c915_story.html
Last time I checked, the Department of Justice was part of the Executive Branch.
Poor Leroy Jenkins. Trying way too hard.
Bookmarks