Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Biden

[Legion]

You appear to be an idiot.

Sometimes appearances are not deceiving. This is one of those times.

[AProudLefty]

Irony

[Geeko Sportivo]

The Supreme Court just dealt a blow to Joe Biden and gun-grabbing progressives everywhere with a unanimous decision on a touchy case.


In what was a busy Monday morning for the Supreme Court, it ruled in favor of a Rhoden Island man who said that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated when police entered his home and seized his guns while not having a warrant, Forbes reported.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that law enforcement cannot legally enter homes without a warrant even in cases where doing so may benefit the public interest, striking down the suggestion from law enforcement and the Biden administration that doing so under a “community caretaking” exception would be justified.

The case, Caniglia v. Strom, considered whether police acted lawfully by entering a man’s home and removing his firearms without a warrant after he had expressed thoughts of suicide and was taken to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation.

https://conservativebrief.com/suprem...ive%20Standard



Thomas wrote the opinion.

Great to see it.

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!

[Legion]

HOW IS THIS A BLOW TO THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION?

Ask Morgan Ratner.

[AProudLefty]

Why would we care what some lady had to say?

[christiefan915]

Who fact-checks Snopes?

[Legion]

If I'd questioned Snopes as a source, you'd have a point, Ms. Butthurt.

Since I didn't, you don't.

[christiefan915]

If I'd questioned Snopes as a source, you'd have a point, Ms. Butthurt.

Since I didn't, you don't.

"Who fact checks Snopes?" was a question, not a statement. Professor.

Please inform the class where Snopes was wrong in the article.

[Legion]

"Who fact checks Snopes?" was a question.

Exactly. Can you answer it, or not?

Please inform the class where Snopes was wrong in the article.

I don't recall stating that "Snopes was wrong in the article", Ms. Butthurt.

[Legion]

What Christiecrite left out:

snopes

Who fact-checks Snopes?

24 March 2021

The Supreme Court weighed when police can enter homes without a warrant.

The Biden administration is urging the court to side with the officers.

The case is Caniglia v. Strom, 20-157.


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/high-court-mulls-police-power-enter-homes-warrant-76661330

How is the Justice Department involved?

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

Did Snopes rule on ABC News, Christiecrite?

Did Snopes rule on the Providence Journal, Christiecrite?

Did Snopes rule on the Washington Post, Christiecrite?

[AProudLefty]

Who fact checks Snopes or any other sites? Intelligent people.

[christiefan915]

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?

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.

[Legion]

None of those headlines or articles implied what the OP claims, that this was a Biden-centered issue.

"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.

[AProudLefty]

Poor Leroy Jenkins. Trying way too hard.