*Everyone* accused of a crime “deserves” all their constitutional and other legal rights being respected, including the presumption of innocence

How about the Eighth Amendment right to reasonable bail?

What federal offense could they conceivably be investigating that has a statute of limitations longer than the standard five years?

Remember his beautiful “Streets of Philadelphia,” about the AIDS crisis.

Good work on that column, btw. Nancy is so eloquent. Very glad I could put you two in touch

What were the dimensions of those sheets of paper, that a hole could be cut in the sheaf that was large enough to put a man’s head through?

And Border Patrol

Already emailed you the name. Let me know if you need more.

Email perhaps?

Wanted to DM you a name but you don’t seem to allow private messages

Oops

But only (a) if “forcibly” and (b) if not under circumstances and in a manner not protected by the First Amendment

The current ICE “enforcement”/arrest/detention actions in cities are not border searches, and are most certainly governed by the Fourth Amendment. The fact that ICE is acting as if this were not so is not due to any ruling by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has done no such thing.

Does the book have good stuff on his colleague Thaddeus Stevens, our local radical R here in SE Pa.?

YouTube video by Library of Congress The House I Live In

“The House I Live In” m.youtube.com/watch?v=ovwH... at 7:00

The key phrase here is “from the third world,” meaning dark-skinned and non-European.

President Thomas Jefferson.

Malignant narcissism is a recognized mental disorder

Actually, depending on the precise framing of the question, the percentage of Texas voters who prefer a generic Democrat over a generic Republican is between 41 and 49 percent.

Thanks to decades of aggressive DOJ litigation, the trigger for overcoming attorney-client privilege with an assertion of the crime-fraud exception is very lax, and the chances of refuting it, once invoked, are almost non-existent.

Don’t confuse me with the facts.

Why is that an “or”?

Yes. See response on this thread from Bearance.

Walker v. City of Birmingham (1967) In Walker v. City of Birmingham (1967), the Court refused to look at whether a court order against Birmingham civil rights protestors violated the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 by 5-4 vote that a person must comply with a court order that applies to them even if that order is clearly and blatantly unconstitutional. firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/walk...

And about Eastern European Jews in the 1910’s and ‘20s.

You’re welcome

No. That’s not 1976.

United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) United States v. Miller

A pernicious decision of the Rehnquist era. Many scholars consider it to have been wrongly decided. Nevertheless the precedent stands at this time. Google “third party doctrine” and Fourth Amendment. supreme.justia.com/cases/federa...

Probably not. See US v Miller (SCt 1976) (records of bank transactions belong to the bank not the customer and so can be obtained by subpoena or summons, not requiring a warrant, without impairing customer’s Fourth Amendment rights)