From the NYT:
Court Blocks Stop-and-Frisk Changes for New York Police
By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN
Published: October 31, 2013
A federal appellate court on Thursday granted a stay in the landmark police stop-and-frisk ruling in New York City, and removed the trial judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, from the case.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that Judge Scheindlin “ran afoul” of the judiciary’s code of conduct by compromising the “appearance of partiality surrounding this litigation.” The panel criticized how she had steered the lawsuit to her courtroom when it was filed in early 2008.
The ruling effectively puts off a battery of changes that Judge Scheindlin, of Federal District Court in Manhattan, had ordered for the Police Department.
Those include the operations of the monitor who was given the task to oversee reforms to the Police Department’s stop-and-frisk practices, which Judge Scheindlin found to violate the Fourth and 14th Amendments of the Constitution.
In a two-page order, the panel of three judges from the Second Circuit also criticized Judge Scheindlin for granting media interviews and making public statements while the case was pending before her.
The judges ordered that the stop-and-frisk lawsuit be reassigned to another judge.
My impression of discrimination rulings is that they are full of this kind of bias and partiality, but the liberal judges almost always get away with it. Sometimes they get overturned, but almost never are they publicly humiliated like Judge Scheindlin.
Why the difference?
I don't know, but one guess might be that these other judges didn't cross crime-fighting billionaire Michael Bloomberg over the core of his legacy as mayor.
Posts
35 comments:
Dang. What power a SWPL has these days.
Coming on Halloween, no less.
Translation here seems to be: If you cross the wrong powerful person, you'll get tricked and no treats will be forthcoming for you.
Wonder what this will do to Judge Sheindlin's future career aspirations? (Kiss that possible nomination to Federal Circuit; DC Court of Appeals; etc) are forever nixed. "Oh yes, your that uppity one who ruled vs Stop and Frisk, aren't you?" NEXT NOMINEE!
But wait, didn't the newly elected mayor, liberal de Blasio, promise to "end the stop and frisk era" anyway?
Great news for New York. I guess in the battle of Radical Jew vs. Moderate Billionaire Jew, the billionaire wins.
not really for meant for publication but did you really mean bias and "impartiality." Can the two coexist?
This will have to eventually be settled by the Supremes. Only a small minority of either side of the court cares much about Fourth Amendment rights or has the fortitude to go against the will of someone powerful, so I doubt this will be struck down first time around.
I'm in favor of New Yorkers fully enjoying all of the joys of multiculturalism, so I hope it gets struck down. Police departments, TSA and homeland security will be able to export these same tactics to the rest of the USA and apply them to "suspected" right wing extremists if this passes muster in the High Court.
I wonder if Judge Shira Scheindlin is related to Judge Judy Scheindlin.
Oh wait, no she isn't.
Perhaps the appelate court judges reside in NYC annd appreciate the difference in public safety cuased by "stop and frisk."
Dang. What power a SWPL has these days.
Bloomberg isn't a "SWPL".
Crime in New York matters to People Who Actually Matter. I suspect DC will go the same way eventually.
Its a moot point Steve. Bloomie's legacy is OVER. New Mayor de Blasio (the prohibitive favorite) has already promised he will END Stop and Frisk, and bring the NYPD "under control."
The NYPD has read the tea leaves. They are now allowing the homeless and thugs free rein over the subway system, which once again resembles the 1970's "Taxi Driver" era of a warzone. Assaults, robberies, just pure hassles, make most of the subways unusable, and this took only a few months.
All that real estate in Times Square, in the Upper East Side, on the West Side? Worth a fraction of its value. Only a matter of time before Times Square is over-run with gang bangers, junkies, prostitutes, and the like. Why?
Because Bloomie's trying to have it both ways, be PC but on the matters that are most important, crime and security, are impossible politically.
You can't be a little bit pregnant. You can't be a little bit PC. Its all or nothing. Either you go full Bull Connor, or you let thugs and criminals who will be overwhelmingly Black, run street rule and make every city look like Detroit or South Central LA.
Put this another way. Our modern religion worships non-Whites as the redemption for the original racial sin of Whiteness. It is post-Christian and has appeal to those who like the form but not the message of Christianity. Our modern religion is incompatible with cities that require either a uniform racial homogenity and massive social consensus and respect for elites (Japan, Hong Kong, Korea, New Zealand) or essentially Judge Dredd.
But wait, didn't the newly elected mayor, liberal de Blasio, promise to "end the stop and frisk era" anyway?
_______________________
Yes, and if all this stands, he can say, "Well, the courts have ruled and there's not a thing I can do about it" without being tarred and feathered by his liberal flock.
"But wait, didn't the newly elected mayor, liberal de Blasio, promise to "end the stop and frisk era" anyway?"
He hasn't been elected mayor yet....
Again, let me add, De Blasio has said he will abandon all court defenses of Stop and Frisk and will end it, and install a monitor to ensure that "dignity" is "respected" for NAMs and so on.
Just like Jerry Brown did not defend Prop 8.
Bloomies out, very soon, so it does not matter what he wants. Stop and Frisk is dead, dead, dead. No major Western city is sustainable with the present populations. None at all.
Diversity news: blacks are given insufficient opportunities to manage professional football teams in England. There are only three out of 92 in the professional leagues - 3.3% of the total - compared to an (official) share of 7% of the population. This will not do!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19418328
Of course, black players make up 20% of the total, meaning whites are severely under-represented among players. The premiership (the top league) is dominated by foreigners - just under 33% of players at this level are qualified to play for England. So English players are colossally under-represented in their own premier league, and white English players super-colossally under-represented.
These disproportions, you will be astonished to hear, receive literally zero coverage in any mainstream media. Were they to receive any coverage, it would doubtless be approving.
Dang. What power a SWPL has these days.
Bloomberg isn't a "SWPL".
Uh, yes he is. What color is he? Purple? Green?
He "L"s is his legacy as mayor. He really likes HIS legacy and wants it to last longer than his term of office's closing days. Safe streets and low crime rates, that's his gift to NY. All the other stuff, the busybody Soros-lite junk is basically tolerated since his base supports most of it and of course the streets are safe. For all this stuff to work in NY, crime must be kept low.
As Manhattan continues to gentrify (largely helped with the stop and frisk policy) more and more and more SWPLs move in. And they probably like low crime, safe neighborhoods as well.
Very few conservatives fall into the category of SWPL. They tend to be upper class or middle upper class yuppie liberals (for the most part).
Bloomie has SWPLs best interests at heart because at heart he's one of them.
QED and no LOL
Why the difference?
Judge Scheindlin in a meaningful way, challenged the power of the police state - this is a rare thing in today’s fear inspired culture. Her decision was not politically popular in NYC. The three judge panel made a political decision - period. Her non-decision actions gave them an opening and they took it.
No one who has read the Bill of Rights can disagree with the original ruling.
Judge Scheindlin in a meaningful way, challenged the power of the police state - this is a rare thing in today’s fear inspired culture. Her decision was not politically popular in NYC. The three judge panel made a political decision - period. Her non-decision actions gave them an opening and they took it.
No one who has read the Bill of Rights can disagree with the original ruling.
Ok, yeah whatever. Some don't live in the real world as it is not as they wish it were to be.
Each Oct 31, for a good scare, I dont watch dracula or frankenstein films.
I like my scare on a realistic side. A reminder of what the world could actually become if we're not careful and vigilant.
And so I watch Charles Bronson in Death Wish. Set in NY in 1974, this is a REMINDER of WHAT exactly things could become IF we allow uppity judges and politicians to allow our safety to degenerate into utter and total chaos.
For true liberty to exist FIRST there must exist safety which means in the real world of which we live in that we can walk in pubic places without a heightened threat of getting killed.
Apparently Mayor Bloomberg has watched Death Wish or at heart he understands the vitalness of continuing an important policy of making sure that people don't get robbed, raped, or murdered in open plain view.
You have a nice day.
we can walk in pubic places
Ah, like Times Square back in the day.
I very much doubt that the three prominent, life-tenured federal appellate judges who issued this order are worried about whatever reaction Bloomberg - who will be out of office in two months - might have to what they do. It happens that two of the three judges are unusually conservative for this very liberal court (the US Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit, which hears appeals from federal district courts in NY state, CT and VT). One of them is Jose Cabranes who is unusually conservative for Democratic jurist (kind of like a latter-day Byron White). Bill Clinton passed up the chance to make Cabranes (a native Puerto Rican) the first Latino on SCOTUS because Cabranes is so (relatively) conservative that Latino activist groups opposed his appointment. Also on the panel was John Walker - a first cousin of George Walker Bush. Walker's a RINO, of course, but by current NYC standards, even Nelson Rockefeller would count as "conservative."
Bloomie has SWPLs best interests at heart because at heart he's one of them.
No, he's not a SWPL. And he hasn't really helped SWPLs that much. In fact, he's priced many of them out of NYC.
Shira Scheindlin is the most obnoxious judge in America. Ask any attorney about her and you will get an eye-roll and a rant about how she has almost single-handedly ruined what used to be a learned profession. Out of all the intellectually stimulating areas of the law in which one can immerse oneself, Scheindlin elected to appoint herself the nation's foremost authority on document retention obligations. Companies incur millions of dollars in costs making sure they have umpteen undeletable backups of every email ever sent and every scrap of paper ever generated lest they be subject to sanctions under some constantly shifting standard adumbrated in the Scheindlin ouevre. She's only a trial judge but manages to imbue her opinions with some magical aura of authority through the oldest trick in the book: When she needs a good precedent on her side, she cites herself, while running something of a cottage industry writing articles and giving speeches on the same topic. What makes this so pathetic is that there is no conceivable area of the law that is more boring and mundane than this. Nobody goes to law school thinking, "You know, I'd love to spend the next forty years of my life arguing about how old a box of tape backups has to be before a company is allowed to throw it out." So even though nobody appointed Shira Scheindlin as the Chief Justice of Document Retention she took the job for herself because nobody else's mind was small enough to care about it.
What's the next career move for the good Judge Scheindlin? Perhaps an irritated Mayor Bloomberg will have her presiding over Night Court?
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is based in NYC. Those judges probably like stop-and-frisk (sounds like a kind of 7-11). They don't want themsevles and thier friends and relatives subject to the kind of street crime that used to be common in New York.
What judge Sheindlin failed to realize is that important people live in New York - wealthy people, super-wealthy people, politically connected people - people who count - not like the hicks and rubes in flyover country, who may be subjected to any kind of intrusive and hairbrained social experimentation that a liberal judge sees fit to impose.
"Anonymous said...
And so I watch Charles Bronson in Death Wish. Set in NY in 1974, this is a REMINDER of WHAT exactly things could become IF we allow uppity judges and politicians to allow our safety to degenerate into utter and total chaos."
What country do you live in? I live in the United States. That is exactly what IS happening - uppity judges and politicians are sowing chaos where we live - illegal immigration, "decentralizing poverty", the proliferation of government surveilance, overreach, and harrassment.
And though Bloomberg supported whatever tactics he saw fit to suppress crime in New York City, he would almost assuredly deny any such measures to the rest of us. Nothing but anarcho-tyranny for us schlemiels in flyover country.
judge scheindlin was correct. NYPD policy is one of the clearest violations of constitutional rights in history. sorry, you just can't randomly stop people and search them.
not that that matters to america's new rulers. they don't care about the law when it contradicts their aims in any other situation, so why would they here.
sure i agree, a police state is what is required if you want both beaming diversity AND a low(er) violent crime rate. that the US has to transform into a totally different county to achieve these aims is easily the dumbest thing ever though. stupidity for stupidity's sake. doubling down on failed liberal ideology, and when it really fails, adopting a conservative policy here or there to save the frankenstein monster nation which they have created, and keep it shambling forward for another decade or two.
wonder how hard de blasio will try to get the policy reversed.
"Police departments, TSA and homeland security will be able to export these same tactics to the rest of the USA and apply them to "suspected" right wing extremists if this passes muster in the High Court."
yep. i lol at the people who think stop and frisk is a good thing. it's a very, very bad thing. these are the same people who thought the patriot act was a good thing. i wonder if they even think it's a good thing that the president said he can just kill any american citizen anytime he wants for any reason at all, with no trial. that a good idea too guys?
There are only three out of 92 in the professional leagues - 3.3% of the total - compared to an (official) share of 7% of the population...These disproportions, you will be astonished to hear, receive literally zero coverage in any mainstream media. Were they to receive any coverage, it would doubtless be approving.
The disproportions are good when it comes to justifying mass immigration.
They will choose whichever interpretation justifies their argument that the West is full of bigots who hate blacks and Muslims.
No one who has read the Bill of Rights can disagree with the original ruling.
No functioning society can have the level of crime that existed pre-stop-and-frisk.
The sad fact is that "equality" demands that we treat people of different races equally in every respect, even when some minorities prove they need harsher laws to rein them in. Whites don't need stop and frisk. Blacks and Hispanics do. Thus we lose our freedoms in order to make everything equal for everyone. We all must be equally unfree.
Maybe if NYC was a nicer place to live, there would be NO reason for stop and search. Maybe it would be better if Bloomberg worked to create a nicer city, NOT a meaner city?
What is it about Bloomberg that demands a heave hand and the use of force to get things done?
Maybe he is an egotistical mean man who’s culture demonstrates no understanding of goodness?
>Whites don't need stop and frisk. Blacks and Hispanics do. Thus we lose our freedoms in order to make everything equal for everyone. We all must be equally unfree.<
Equal application of law becomes difficult when people are not equal.
For example, kiddie-diddlers are notably recidivist. But the moment someone cries: "Cut off their privates!" someone else sighs: "We can't do that. We would have to cut EVERYONE'S off who offended us." Why?
Regarding blindness as a fitting symbol of justice is questionable. This ambiguous blindness can be perverted into a tool of injustice. What is back of zero tolerance policies, for example, if not the enshrinement of blindness?
Anonymous said...
Bloomie has SWPLs best interests at heart because at heart he's one of them.
No, he's not a SWPL. And he hasn't really helped SWPLs that much. In fact, he's priced many of them out of NYC.
Yes, he is. He's helped them in the one area that counts and matters: Crime prevention. NY is not Chicago or Detroit.
He's priced out the "wrong sort" of folks, leaving NY to the "right sort" of folks, the ones that count and matter. People like himself. Bottom line: He cares about the "right sort" of SWPLs, people like himself. Not the riff raff.
That, at the basic level, perfectly describes the mindset of an SWPL. They think they are better than other whites (e.g. rednecks) THEY count. They matter. They are important and oh so special.
And you cant have your ideal world if the chance of getting robbed, raped, and murdered exists in a larger percentage that isn't good for businesses, etc.
I very much doubt that the three prominent, life-tenured federal appellate judges who issued this order are worried about whatever reaction Bloomberg - who will be out of office in two months - might have to what they do.
In the end, they will continue stop and frisk. They too live in the city or have relatives that do or know "important folks" just like themselves who do. Its all interconnected. They dont want to upset the apple cart. They dont want NY to return to the days of 1,000 crimes per wk.
Its survival and instinctive mode. They get it at that level. This policy at a basic level also affects THEM, not yokels in flyover statistic land. This affects them personally. And they kinda like it that the crime rates low.
And though Bloomberg supported whatever tactics he saw fit to suppress crime in New York City, he would almost assuredly deny any such measures to the rest of us. Nothing but anarcho-tyranny for us schlemiels in flyover country.
But they've been consistent about that all along. When THEY are directly affected, they behave a totally different way, almost....like conservatives. THEY are too important and special to have to risk being robbed and murdered.
i lol at the people who think stop and frisk is a good thing. it's a very, very bad thing.
Jody, Jody, Jody.
Wake up.
Look at all the cities that "the element" is taking over and destroying with violent crime. If only stop and frisk had been implemented yrs ago in most major cities, the crime rates wouldnt be as bad and escalating out of control like they are in many many cities.
Today Detroit, tomorrow Indianapolis, which is steadily becoming a high crime area. There is a reason, but you'd have to face facts. Might want to read P. Kersey regarding why crime is becoming a major problem.
No one likes the risk of being murdered. Fact. Crime is at the state and local level. This is one good bright spot that Bloomberg is leaving to the NY populace. Safe streets, less rapes and murders. You'd think more mayors would have the people's will at heart and implement it. If they only had done so, violent crime would prolly be half of what it is right now in various cities.
Bottom line: "we'll quit stop and frisk when that element no longer commits the bulk of the violent crimes." Pretty easy to understand.
Bloomberg, in his own way, is subtly giving the mayors of other cities an example of a policy that basically works. Prevention. Stop the....before they have an opportunity to commit a crime. Again and again, no one wants to be a crime victim. Hard for some to understand that until it happens to them or a loved one.
Bloomberg gets it.
Maybe if NYC was a nicer place to live, there would be NO reason for stop and search. Maybe it would be better if Bloomberg worked to create a nicer city, NOT a meaner city?
NY is a pretty nice city to live, if you're "the right sort" of folk. The policy on the whole works. Nice/mean whatever. The city's residents are alive to make their own lives, that's what counts. Not ending up as a statistic.
If only other cities would implement this life saving policy.
"Matthew said...
No functioning society can have the level of crime that existed pre-stop-and-frisk."
New York City is a foreign country. I don't care if it is a functioning society or not. If it doesn't function, then it is thier own damned fault. I don't, however, want them to enact policies and set precedents that will eventually affect me. If they don't wish to abide by the Constitution, then they should secede from the Union. They are most welcome to go, as far as I am concerned.
Anon 4:17, I'm with you in spirit, but in a world where the government violates MY constitutional right to protect myself, I can't get exercised about the demographic group that supplies most of our criminals getting their's violated, too.
>> jody said...
judge scheindlin was correct. NYPD policy is one of the clearest violations of constitutional rights in history. sorry, you just can't randomly stop people and search them.
The S&F's were NOT "random". "Random" would be (say for example) every third person passing by. S&F'ing groups of wilding AA's is not "random". It is "profiling". And that is what humans are paid to do: exercise their judgement, based on demonstrable numeric facts. "Profiling" is a beautiful thing.
"Anonymous said...
Anon 4:17, I'm with you in spirit, but in a world where the government violates MY constitutional right to protect myself, I can't get exercised about the demographic group that supplies most of our criminals getting their's violated, too."
Sure, I can understand that.
Post a Comment