travel ban injunction

[mchammer]

Don’t know if we had a past thread on the Spanish Inquisition, but it has been said that our current war on drugs would put it to shame. Anyway, some useful commentary about it and the law:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018...for-their-time/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

[Mr. Deez]

Don’t know if we had a past thread on the Spanish Inquisition, but it has been said that our current war on drugs would put it to shame. Anyway, some useful commentary about it and the law:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018...for-their-time/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

The article is interesting, and I'm sure the Spanish Inquisition gets a bad rap because of the politics of the time spilling into the modern era. However, the suggestion that the War on Drugs would put it to shame is absurd hyperbole.

 

[bystander]

Re: Injunctions

What would be the answer? Take the case straight to the Supreme Court?

 

[mchammer]

The article is interesting, and I'm sure the Spanish Inquisition gets a bad rap because of the politics of the time spilling into the modern era. However, the suggestion that the War on Drugs would put it to shame is absurd hyperbole.

Really? Compare how many are in jail and died in drug raids for exercising their free will versus the numbers provided in that article (3 deaths per year). How absurd is that?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Really? Compare how many are in jail and died in drug raids for exercising their free will versus the numbers provided in that article (3 deaths per year). How absurd is that?

Really? Yes. The Spanish Inquisition wasn't judged harshly for how many it prosecuted or killed. It was judged harshly (and sometimes unfairly as the article specifies) because of how it prosecuted people (by inquisition and with poor due process rights) and tortured people.

A defendant facing drug charges isn't going to be subject to an inquisition. Instead, he's going to have Fifth Amendment protection from testifying against himself (the complete opposite of an inquisition). He's going to be represented by counsel (even if he can't afford it) with ethical duties to him rather than to the tribunal. He's going to have a right to a trial by jury. He's going to have the right to appeal. Those make a big difference. And of course, if convicted, he's going to the slammer, but he's not going to get tortured.

Don't get the wrong idea. I'm not a fan of the drug war, but to suggest that it puts the Spanish Inquisition to shame is absurd - like Leftists who compare short-term family separation at the border with Auschwitz.

 

[mchammer]

Really? Yes. The Spanish Inquisition wasn't judged harshly for how many it prosecuted or killed. It was judged harshly (and sometimes unfairly as the article specifies) because of how it prosecuted people (by inquisition and with poor due process rights) and tortured people.

A defendant facing drug charges isn't going to be subject to an inquisition. Instead, he's going to have Fifth Amendment protection from testifying against himself (the complete opposite of an inquisition). He's going to be represented by counsel (even if he can't afford it) with ethical duties to him rather than to the tribunal. He's going to have a right to a trial by jury. He's going to have the right to appeal. Those make a big difference. And of course, if convicted, he's going to the slammer, but he's not going to get tortured.

Don't get the wrong idea. I'm not a fan of the drug war, but to suggest that it puts the Spanish Inquisition to shame is absurd - like Leftists who compare short-term family separation at the border with Auschwitz.

First, this isn’t a law board. Second, there are other ways of assessing the impact of government coercion than through a legal lense. Third, I stand by my point that the war on drugs is a bigger government operation in scale and scope than the Inquisition. Fourth, I have the right to be rhetorical.