I disagree that everyone across the political spectrum agrees on this: Thin Blue Liners have considerable sway over politics, and they're happily on the take.
Can you provide a reference where you have seen someone take this stance? I personally have never seen it, and I think I know a lot of pro police types. I think most pro police types would see this as corruption.
2016 essay by the president of the Fraternal Order of Police arguing against civil forfeiture reform.
> The FOP does not disagree that there is a need for civil asset forfeiture reform. In fact, we worked very closely with Senator Jeff Sessions on this issue going back to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) of 2000.
2017 essay by then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein praising civil forfeiture and arguing reform is not necessary.
> Some critics claim that civil asset forfeiture fails to protect property rights or provide due process. The truth is that there are multiple levels of judicial protection, as well as administrative safeguards.
4 of the 5 justices that overturned Roe v. Wade (and ruled there is no right to privacy in the US) were appointed by presidents that lost the popular vote.
Whether or not you agree with them; whether or not you agree with the results of the electoral college; I've never heard of a viable dispute to the de jure legitimacy of their appointments.
I posted that link in response to an inquiry for a single source in support of civil forfeiture. While I happen to agree with the general thrust of your complaint, it is a non sequitur. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority, provided a Congress unwilling to hold them accountable (which it currently is).
My question of 'credibility' is not "do you like the Federalist Society" but "do you think they're in political alignment with the Thin Blue Liners and are they writing policy."
I don't think the current Supreme Court is a credible source of information about US law. The fact that many of them belong to some organization lends it negative credibility in my mind.
I mean, they essentially write and rewrite laws that come before them. They're literally an authoritative source of law. We can scream about the injustice of that until we're blue in the face, but denying the facts doesn't get us anywhere.
I've never met a pro police type that would mention anything as corruption. If you asked them directly some would agree, but as a group I generally just hear apoligism.
How can it be corruption when it's all because of just "a few bad apples"? (Quoth my thin blue line next door neighbor.) To that world view, nothing wrong is systemic; it's all down to individuals whose behavior is not considered part of the whole.
Incidentally, I'm not sure he's familiar with the second half of the idiom ("spoils the whole bunch").
The fact the police unions sell or give out special signifiers for family members of police is proof enough. The fake badgers stuck to windshields in the NYC area is an obvious reminder of the corruption openly allowed by the police.
And then you have the license plates and stickers and whatnot.
