In the case of Fisher v. University of Texas I don’t see any injury to Fisher. She applied and was rejected, but she still got into another good school. She never suffered anything from being denied admission to the school. If she hadn’t gone to LSU instead she might have had a better case if being denied had hurt her chances for other schools. I don’t think Fisher was rejected because of what her skin color was or wasn’t, but the case against affirmative action is a good one. Diversity will happen on its own. It doesn’t need help from affirmative action programs.Standing to Sue and the Proper Role of the Courts
If the EPA president would introduce new laws and regulations, and enforce them it might make a difference. In the past when laws and regulations weren’t enforced it didn’t get them anywhere. IF they were to either enforce ones that they already have, or create new laws and regulations they might find that it will make a difference.
Lobbying Congress would get more stringent environmental regulations. With the federal court they would only pass what the plaintiffs want and it would be harder to get more passed on the issue. Lobbying the President and the EPA would be a good Idea because it would raise attention to the issue and would bring more awareness. It could also enforce more laws and would help regulate the laws that are already in the books. Experience hasn’t demonstrated that these methods don’t work. We also can’t rely on past experiences that it wont work because new information and more people who want these laws to pass fight and bring attention to them. Lobbying is a good way to get attention to the subject. It could also help pass a lot more laws dealing with the environment.
I agree that ruling in the favor of the petitioner could become a slippery slope . If drug dogs are allowed to walk onto a persons private property, sniff drugs inside of the house and then get a search warrant to arrest someone for possession of drugs what is the purpose of the fourth amendment? If the court was to rule in the favor of Florida there would need to be serious limitations put on the use of drug sniffing dogs. Florida winning could lead to drug dogs being used in neighborhoods, private land, schools and other places that were previously thought to be protected by the fourth amendment. If the power of the fourth amendment is diminished it leaves citizens vulnerable to unwarranted searches and seizures and it allows police officers to use the information found by the dogs to procure a warrant to search and arrest people. If Florida wins this case it could lead to a dangerous slippery slope.Slippery Slope?
In the case of Florida v. Jardines, Joelis Jardines was suspected of growing marijuana and his house was “sniff tested” by drug-detecting dogs without a warrant by the Florida police. The dogs detected a scent and the police later came back with a warrant to find that Joelis Jardines had been growing marijauna and was arrested. Mr. Jardines argued that the evidence should be thrown out because of the tip given by the dog from the “sniff test” preformed without a warrant.
If the Supreme Court of the United States rules in favor of Florida, it is essentially being said that these free “sniff tests” can be preformed on any person under suspicion. This idea of these free “sniff tests” seems to be of good intentions but is not lawful under the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States should rule in favor of Joelis Jardines due the fact that these tests are and should be ruled as unconstitutional.
In this case, the State of Florida believes that using a drug dog to do a “sniff test” outside of someone’s home without a warrant is legal because the police was not searching within the suspect’s home. If the Supreme Court of the United States rules in favor of the State of Florida, then it seems that the police could argue that doing a drug test to anyone in public or a place outside of a building is legal. The police could argue that anyone on public property or anywhere outside of a building could be searched without a warrant or probable cause. I believe that this gives the Supreme Court a reason to rule in Jardines favor. I believe that the police should have probable cause to search someone because of the Fourth Amendment. The only way the police should be able to search someone or someone’s house is if they have a warrant, except in the case of a student at school. Since this case could change the warrant procedure and the way police departments work, I believe the Supreme Court has a more than reasonable explanation for voting in favor of Jardines.