Supreme Court Announces Blutarsky Doctrine In Equal Protection Cases

Print This Post

27 Responses

  1. radar says:

    Cmon, man, that was Otter's line, not Bluto's! How can I take the rest of your post seriously when you err in this most basic of facts?

  2. shg says:

    Seriously. Did you even see Animal House?

  3. joe schmoe says:

    I think it was Otter who said "you fucked up, you trusted us"

  4. Patrick says:

    Hey man, you fucked up. You trusted me.

  5. Ken says:

    You beat me to this one.

    But you took it in a entirely different direction than I was going to. I was going to focus on the contemptible and yet spectacular entitled butthurt of the police chief, who is furious that anyone would call his liars liars.

  6. Patrick says:

    He probably deserves a post of his own.

  7. David says:

    But his officers use deception! That's no more lying than kicking a suspect in the head thirty times is assault!

  8. TJIC says:

    > Hey man, you fucked up. You trusted us.

    How much longer until it's ethical to start shooting?

  9. Secular Absolutist says:

    That was a surprisingly well written and well thought out decision. Volusia County is a better place having this judge in it's courthouse. Without a doubt, Judge Will carefully and thoroughly considered this decision. The defense attorney Scott Swain is terrific too. He posed the question in the finest possible way. A public defender no-less!

    RE: Chief Chitwood

    To paraphrase a famous poet, he can snort my taint. The judge did not impugn the integrity of his officers. They did that just fine all on their own.

    Hey cops, if you value your integrity, use it in such a manner as to protect it. Just because it is legal doesn't make it right.

  10. Scott Jacobs says:

    Had the cops just used the deception to LOOK, that would have been one thing.

    But opening up drawers crossed a line – they either needed a warrant or explicit permission.

    And why DIDN'T they get a warrant? Could they seriously not find a judge that would rubber stamp a "we totally got a tip about drugs in this house"-based search warrant?

    They must really suck at bullshitting judges.

  11. mojo says:

    Never trust anybody who lies for a living.

    Common sense, really.

  12. Secular Absolutist says:

    @mojo – truer words are hard to find!

  13. Jeff says:

    Patrick,
    I don't know why you are railing against the Supreme Court decision. Admittedly Brisbane's operators are idiots, but that wasn't the question. The question was whether idiocy was Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court simply said that, no, you're allowed to elect idiots to run your cities and you get what you get. That seems fair to me. :-)
    Jeff

  14. TJIC says:

    @Scott Jacobs:

    > And why DIDN'T they get a warrant?

    Why should they? They weren't investigating a real person (i.e. fellow cop). They were just setting up a perp. [ That's a joke, of course. Cops almost never investigate fellow cops. ]

    Also, what's the downside? Judges know that cops routinely lie under oath, and yet do nothing about it. So if it makes life one iota easier, skip the warrant.

  15. ShelbyC says:

    Not seeing the problem here. Didn't the people who chose to pay in full "fuck up" because they failed to anticipate an event that would make it uneconomical to bill people in installments. An understandable fuck-up, to be sure, but still a fuck-up. Them's the breaks, right? Some days you're the baby, some days you're the diaper.

  16. Secular Absolutist says:

    @ShelbyC

    or…. life is like a shit sandwich. Some days you get a double decker.

  17. Grifter says:

    The chief's response about the difference between deception and lying reminds me of another quote from another classic:

    J. Blues: "You lied to me"
    E. Blues: "It wasn't lies, it was just…bullshit"

  18. Personanongrata says:

    Because hey man, you keep fucking up. You trust them.

    Say it again.

  19. bobby says:

    Seems that this is an education for the masses. Long-Term payment option with NO interest versus FULL payment upfront … hmmm … lemme think about that one …

    Any chance to starve the beast, I'm gonna take it.

  20. John David Galt says:

    In my copy, neither Bluto nor Otter spoke those words. D-day did.

  21. SPQR says:

    John David Galt, not in the special, Director's Sooper Dooper edition.

  22. TJIC says:

    @ShelbyC:

    > Not seeing the problem here. Them's the breaks, right?

    By this logic, some people get raped with broom handles, and no real problem, because them's the breaks, right?

    I'm not sure I like a normative ethical model where "whatever the government chooses to do, the government is allowed to do" is the central axiom.

  23. ShelbyC says:

    @TJIC, As much as a tax bill can sometims feel like getting raped with a broom handle, I think you're missing the "normative ethical model". The model isn't "whatever the government chooses to do, the government is allowed to do". You just made that up. The model is, whenever the government treats people differently, it must have a rational basis for doing so. And here, the government isn't making people pay different amounts of taxes because, say, they're black, or even because they bought their houses at different times. They're treating people differently for a perfectly legitimate reason: Due to unforeseen issues relating to the bookkeeping system, it has become uneconomical to collect taxes from people who chose the installment plan.
    Heck, if they had to refund the money to the people who had already paid in full, it might have made sense to pony up the extra money to allow the bookkeeping system to collect taxes from the installment plan people, even at a loss. And the last thing we want is to give the governement more encouagement to engage in inefficient behavior, right?

  24. Bret says:

    Justice Roberts dissenting:

    The reason we have rejected this argument is obvious: The Equal Protection Clause does not provide that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, unless it’s too much of a bother.”

    Awesome.

  25. Josh says:

    @Bret:

    Jesus Tapdancing Christ. I agree with C.J. Roberts on something…WTF is this world coming to?

  26. Tam says:

    Et tu, Clarence?

  27. perlhaqr says:

    Or as the folks in H&R would put it: "Fuck you, that's why."