I want to say this is good, but if you look at the "exemptions" for when law enforcement wearing masks is fine, it covers basically any and every possible scenario. So to me it just seems a performative act to make it seem like they are doing something while doing nothing at all.
Historically, establishing a right with exceptions then subsequently eliminating those exceptions has been effective method of effecting change in the US government system.
E.g. the famous Marbury v. Madison decision that effected no action in that instance but substantially shaped the relationship between the branches by establishing the federal court system's power of judicial review
> They didn't ban criminals from wearing masks, they didn't tell criminals that they had to identify themselves," Bianco said while campaigning in Northern California on Friday. "Every single person that voted for that needs to be eliminated in the next election. Anyone that votes for those people are absolute idiots.
I question the intelligence of suggesting that police should be held to the same standard as criminals. "If the bad guys can do it, we should be able to do it!" Is a wild take.
The core tenet that makes someone the good guy is "we treat them better than they would treat us". It's so disappointing to see the people who are supposed to be the good guys advocating they should be able to be as cruel as the bad guys they exist to prevent.
Am I missing something?
> Bianco said while campaigning in Northern California on Friday. "Every single person that voted for that needs to be eliminated in the next election. Anyone that votes for those people are absolute idiots.
holy shit, "eliminated" is not the appropriate word here... what is wrong with this guy? (other than uncontrolled anger?)
I'm starting to see this everywhere. "There was no due process when illegal immigrants hopped the border" and "Laken Riley didn't get any due process" are widespread talking points at this point. Kavanaugh talks about how the goal of the criminal is to evade the law when considering the balance of equities in his concurrence on racial profiling in ICE stops.
I've even seen comments here and on reddit of people saying that the exclusionary rule should be eliminated, since if somebody is a criminal they shouldn't get constitutional protections.
It is worth remembering that the idea that the constitution seriously protects even those who really did crimes is pretty radical. Things that we consider to be baked into our judicial system (the exclusionary rule, miranda warnings) are not terribly old and were extremely controversial when first established. Congress passed a whole law saying that Miranda v Arizona was invalid (which they don't have the power to do). This means that we need active work to protect it.
In addition to that, you don't need to ban criminals from wearing masks because you can already arrest them for the crime they're doing. And also pretty sure you can identify them after that one way or the other. It's a dumb take throughout.
But doesn't claiming that immunity require them to identify themselves as such? In which case identification to claim immunity to the law also happens to involve complying with the law.
I'm surprised this needed to be a law. Or wasn't already one?
Or maybe I'm just surprised that a group of law enforcement officers would decide, "Hey, we don't want people to know who we are," and decide to wear masks.
"…I think this is what the state of California is trying to do. Establish limits as to how much the federal government can do within the jurisdiction of the state. It's an issue of state sovereignty."
More of the Cold Civil War playing out. (Also see coastal states forming health cooperatives (?) so that their citizens can get COVID vaccines, etc.)
> Or maybe I'm just surprised that a group of law enforcement officers would decide, "Hey, we don't want people to know who we are," and decide to wear masks.
It would be nice to be surprised. It _should_ be surprising. It's unfortunately not surprising at all.
Youth services has been hiding the names of their employees for more than a decade now. A few years back the final shoe dropped: now kids aren't even allowed to know the name of the judge that took them away from their home anymore.
They cite, of course, the same argument ICE makes: threats against them.
Is that legal? Well, their theory is that any kind of "family law" proceeding (including convicting minors of crimes, and locking them up without access to family or schooling for years) is considered civil law. Therefore none of the normal legal rights apply. I would think this is trivially a violation of the constitution, especially because it comes to imprisonment, but clearly it is not, since the justice department has no problems doing it. A child can be locked up for a crime (up to when they get 27 years old, yes, not 18, in some states), even if the present proof they didn't do it. The very, very, very basic legal right to not get convicted of a crime that you didn't do is openly violated by youth services. Right to have a trial? Nope. Right to having the state prove their case? Nope. Right to not get locked up without cause? No. Etc.
Needless to say, this was promptly exploited by some states who gave kickbacks to judges who "delivered" juveniles for private detention facilities. When caught doing this, the justice department promptly declared nobody had done anything wrong (except one of the judges who, in addition to having thousands of kids locked up for money, had lied on his taxes. He was never actually imprisoned, and finally pardoned by the president)
Oh and in case you don't know: locking minors away from school? Yes. Youth services does that. Parents aren't allowed to do that. Schools aren't allowed to do that. The police isn't allowed to do that (minor gets arrested, and wants to go to classes or do your homework? Police has to make it happen). Fucking death row isn't allowed to keep a minor out of school. But youth services IS allowed to do it.
So a secret police in the US? This is not new. What's new is that immigration enforcement started doing it on a large scale.
They're just going say that they're federal and not bound by state law, aren't law enforcement they're immigration enforcement, or that they're undercover.
In theory, the actual individuals are still bound by state law, but the supremacy clause allows federal laws made in pursuance of the US Constitution to preempt those state laws. Of course, these laws still need to be "necessary and proper" for carrying out an express power like regulating immigration. A law that is unnecessary or improper would theoretically not hold up in court. The same goes for executive action.
Perhaps the most infamous case of this was the Idaho manslaughter case against FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi for killing Vicki Weaver in the Ruby Ridge incident. His case was simply "removed" to federal court and dismissed under the supremacy clause (although this dismissal was later overturned narrowly when appealed).
I don't think the administration will care if their acctions break state law when they already blatantly ignore the supreme cours and the constitution every day.
I'm think they should be stopped, but i don't think this will be effective, we need to reflect deeply on why this is happening to create a coherent sound plan as how to stop and prevent it.
Readit News
E.g. the famous Marbury v. Madison decision that effected no action in that instance but substantially shaped the relationship between the branches by establishing the federal court system's power of judicial review
I question the intelligence of suggesting that police should be held to the same standard as criminals. "If the bad guys can do it, we should be able to do it!" Is a wild take.
The core tenet that makes someone the good guy is "we treat them better than they would treat us". It's so disappointing to see the people who are supposed to be the good guys advocating they should be able to be as cruel as the bad guys they exist to prevent.
Am I missing something?
> Bianco said while campaigning in Northern California on Friday. "Every single person that voted for that needs to be eliminated in the next election. Anyone that votes for those people are absolute idiots.
holy shit, "eliminated" is not the appropriate word here... what is wrong with this guy? (other than uncontrolled anger?)
I've even seen comments here and on reddit of people saying that the exclusionary rule should be eliminated, since if somebody is a criminal they shouldn't get constitutional protections.
It is worth remembering that the idea that the constitution seriously protects even those who really did crimes is pretty radical. Things that we consider to be baked into our judicial system (the exclusionary rule, miranda warnings) are not terribly old and were extremely controversial when first established. Congress passed a whole law saying that Miranda v Arizona was invalid (which they don't have the power to do). This means that we need active work to protect it.
Dead Comment
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Don't Feds have immunity to almost everything?
I think the law is to start a fight with the Federal government. All they need to do is arrest 1 of them and then it's on.
Will it do anything? I dunno, but I'm tired of watching Dems do nothing.
Or maybe I'm just surprised that a group of law enforcement officers would decide, "Hey, we don't want people to know who we are," and decide to wear masks.
"…I think this is what the state of California is trying to do. Establish limits as to how much the federal government can do within the jurisdiction of the state. It's an issue of state sovereignty."
More of the Cold Civil War playing out. (Also see coastal states forming health cooperatives (?) so that their citizens can get COVID vaccines, etc.)
It would be nice to be surprised. It _should_ be surprising. It's unfortunately not surprising at all.
They cite, of course, the same argument ICE makes: threats against them.
Is that legal? Well, their theory is that any kind of "family law" proceeding (including convicting minors of crimes, and locking them up without access to family or schooling for years) is considered civil law. Therefore none of the normal legal rights apply. I would think this is trivially a violation of the constitution, especially because it comes to imprisonment, but clearly it is not, since the justice department has no problems doing it. A child can be locked up for a crime (up to when they get 27 years old, yes, not 18, in some states), even if the present proof they didn't do it. The very, very, very basic legal right to not get convicted of a crime that you didn't do is openly violated by youth services. Right to have a trial? Nope. Right to having the state prove their case? Nope. Right to not get locked up without cause? No. Etc.
Needless to say, this was promptly exploited by some states who gave kickbacks to judges who "delivered" juveniles for private detention facilities. When caught doing this, the justice department promptly declared nobody had done anything wrong (except one of the judges who, in addition to having thousands of kids locked up for money, had lied on his taxes. He was never actually imprisoned, and finally pardoned by the president)
Oh and in case you don't know: locking minors away from school? Yes. Youth services does that. Parents aren't allowed to do that. Schools aren't allowed to do that. The police isn't allowed to do that (minor gets arrested, and wants to go to classes or do your homework? Police has to make it happen). Fucking death row isn't allowed to keep a minor out of school. But youth services IS allowed to do it.
So a secret police in the US? This is not new. What's new is that immigration enforcement started doing it on a large scale.
SWAT officers also wear masks when on mission, for their own protection, so why should ICE have to unmask by law?
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Perhaps the most infamous case of this was the Idaho manslaughter case against FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi for killing Vicki Weaver in the Ruby Ridge incident. His case was simply "removed" to federal court and dismissed under the supremacy clause (although this dismissal was later overturned narrowly when appealed).
Sure. But hopefully they'll be saying that while one of their own is being charged.
Under the current administration? Not at all https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/18/ice-nyc-protest-005...
Dead Comment