Sometimes the American justice system is too complex even for trained bloggers, so someone please feel free to explain to us the moral rationale for this sequence of events: the NYPD has a "stop and frisk" program, expressly designed to harass minorities without probable cause, which is clearly unconstitutional. Earlier this month, a federal judge finally ruled that the NYPD would have to stop its stop and frisk program in a certain area, because it is, you know, unconstitutional. Now, that judge says that the NYPD can resume that same stop and frisk program temporarily, because—write this on your yellow legal pad, law students—stopping this unconstitutional program would be too much hassle, for the cops.
Future historians of America will want to closely study this explanatory paragraph from the NY Daily News:
Manhattan Federal Court Judge Shira Scheindlin lifted the order [halting the stop and frisk program] Tuesday after she agreed with city lawyers who said the immediate halt of some "Clean Halls" trespass stops would impose an undue burden on the NYPD, requiring some form of "notification to and/or training of" thousands of NYPD officers and their supervisors.
Requiring the NYPD to stop unconstitutionally harassing New York residents would be an undue burden on the NYPD. Why, they would have to notify and even train cops not to unconstitutionally harass citizens. That is patently ridiculous, on its face. What, has someone invented a magical "electronic mail" machine that can instantly transmit information around an entire city? Are we living in a science fiction world in which memos can be easily "copied" on pieces of paper and handed out at "meetings?" It's insanity to even contemplate such a thing.
She's only lifted the order for a few months, pending further legal action on the nature of her ruling, so look on the bright side, NYC minorities: just stay inside for now, and when you come out, it'll be spring!