• Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    3 days ago

    Does anyone actually understand what the ruling is arguing? It seems to be arguing that the individuals are not liable since they did not sign a contract.

    Honesty it is horrifying that the supreme court is now a political tool. Justices should not have a political party affiliation

    • gasgiant@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 days ago

      Ok I’m not a legal expert and I think this is an abhorrent thing. He should have not had his head shaved.

      However the main point of the ruling is that he can’t sue prison in a federal court because at the time it happened it wasn’t technically a federal prison. Which is just a ruling on jurisdiction.

      I believe he can still sue other ways.

        • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yup. You bet there is an army of asshole lawyers looking for “well, ackshually” technical methods to invalidate the entire bill of rights.

          The idea that a fucking PRISON doesn’t have to follow the Bill of Rights for any kind of technicality is just further confirmation that we’re living in a fascist state.