Oopsie-doodle, its almost like irresponsible journalists inserted the word "Nationwide" into a discussion about Chicago
Did Trump say "nationwide"? Why is the headline "Donald Trump says he would implement nationwide stop and frisk policy"

Luckily the distinction is moot due to the supremacy clause applying to 4th amendment rights for state or municipal laws. Gotcha journalism for sure but constitutionally a violation none the less.

New York decided not to pursue a challenge to the constitutionality of stop and frisk because it had already served its purpose and crime rates had dropped dramatically. They dropped their appeal because it was politically toxic, not as a matter of law
Judge Scheindlin ruled in a lower court in a biased decision that actually got her removed by the second circuit for violating impartiality, but New York didn't push an appeal beyond its local southern district court when it could have taken a new case with a new judge in the same courts
The consitutional argument against the stop and frisk in that case was bogus, because the court found that race was not being unconstitutionally used as a determinative factor

Constitutionally, stop and frisk could easily be implemented again and any such rulings about constitutionality be waved away overnight.

So, hypothetically, you believe that a nationwide stop and frisk law would not be constitutionally overturned by the USSC?

IMO if you take such a strong stance on the interpretation of the 4th amendment that you call the constitutional violation of a warrentless pat down "bogus" we differ in opinion far too much to even argue this. Stop and frisk is something that can be constitutionally acceptable if only used with probable cause, giving it catch all powers that can be abused for warantless searches devoid of even suspicion is where it crosses the line. These issues arise all of the time, a power given to police is abused and eventually appealed because the abuse allowed by vague laws allows for constitutional abuse, see ID laws in the southwest for a prime example.

What I personally support and what a willing government could accomplish in the courts are two different things. Floyd v C-NY gave the city a clear path to overturn, but new york wanted stop and frisk killed and swept under the carpet, not litigated any further.
It doesn't strike you that stop and frisk persisted for decades without being ruled unconstitutional, until crime dropped enough it became politically unpopular?
It pushed such a fine line that it was allowed as long as there was the stomach for it. And if that appetite returns, theres no scotus ruling writ in stone to overturn, just some deeply flawed ruling by a biased judge in a lower court.

The race component was bogus, so the only element the courts have to push the bar on Terry stops is what constitutes the suspicion of a crime, because that bleeding edge has already been pushed by precedent like Arizona v Johnson saying that any traffic violation, no matter how minor, is already grounds- extending that to non-motorists puts the bar far lower than NY's self-imposed policy of felony suspicion. This is a far smaller issue than you cast it, being warrantless or lack of probable cause were never at issue, only whether officers could cite furtive movements or mere presence in a high crime area as 'reasonable suspicion'.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Sep 22 2016 10:52am

I'm unconcerned with the politics of the matter, i don't care when lawmakers got around to taking it off the books. As you said there's a documented history of dirty laws sticking around until they don't have a purpose. I'm more concerned with a stop and frisk inherently violating someone's 4th amendment right under certain aspects of reasonable suspicion, as i feel that's too broad of a category for this practice. Given this someone who walks home from a 2nd shift job anywhere near the ghetto can be stopped and frisked for potentially dealing drugs if they happen to be near a suspected hookup. I personally don't care if it makes policing in these high crime areas more difficult, as i see policing in those areas as deeply flawed anyway.

And I think dragnet internet surveillance by the NSA should be unconstitutional too, but if wishes were fishes
Stop and Frisk could easily jump any constitutional hurdles in the courts and it could probably significantly reduce gun violence in chicago. Whether that would be the right thing or not, isn't as clear a picture.

Lol. Gotta love the honesty.

If anyone didn't see my thread about the podcast by David Axelrod(former senior Obama adviser), called The Axe Files, check it out. He talks to a lot of interesting political people(the last one before Michael Steele was Karl Rove.

http://nypost.com/2016/09/18/black-voters-are-turning-from-clinton-to-trump-in-new-poll/

The black voters are moving away from the Democratic Party finally. so many are realizing that the Democrat Party has been using and abusing them for the longest time. Promising fake change with fake solutions.

Donald Trump despite all the liberal media's attempts to deem him racist is going to get a lot more of the black vote then a normal Republican candidate gets.

He's been at zero nearly the entire time.