1. If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

  2. Dismiss Notice

US Supreme Court OT 2018

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Comm2A, Jan 10, 2019.

  1. Waher

    Waher NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    7,349
    Likes Received:
    5,207
    Location:
    BG&RA, BR&PC
    JayMcB and crispnipz like this.

  2. Boston4567

    Boston4567 NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    460
    Location:
    Merrimack Valley
    Hell yes. Best potential justice out there, with Kozinski a close second (well, at least if he were younger and hadn't got #MeToo'd). This opinion is probably the most legendary opinion I've ever seen: http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1008502/120657c1.pdf

    This case raises constitutional eyebrows because it asks building-block questions about constitutional architecture—about how we as Texans govern ourselves and about the relationship of the citizen to the State. This case concerns far more than whether Ashish Patel can pluck unwanted hair with a strand of thread. This case is fundamentally about the American Dream and the unalienable human right to pursue happiness without curtsying to government on bended knee. It is about whether government can connive with rent-seeking factions to ration liberty unrestrained, and whether judges must submissively uphold even the most risible encroachments.

    [...]

    The Texas Constitution enshrines structural principles meant to advance individual freedom; they are not there for mere show. Our Framers opted for constitutional—that is, limited—government, meaning majorities don’t possess an untrammeled right to trammel. The State would have us wield a rubber stamp rather than a gavel, but a written constitution is mere meringue if courts rotely exalt majoritarianism over constitutionalism, and thus forsake what Chief Justice Marshall called their “painful duty”—“to say, that such an act was not the law of the land.”

    [...]

    The principal dissent claims “the rational basis standard invokes objective reason as its measure,” a contention difficult to take seriously. Legal fictions abound in the law, but the federal “rational basis test” is something special; it is a misnomer, wrapped in an anomaly, inside a contradiction. Its measure often seems less objective reason than subjective rationalization.​

    [​IMG]
     
  3. LittleCalm

    LittleCalm NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    520
  4. LittleCalm

    LittleCalm NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    520
    I'm not sure the problem necessarily lies with the principle. If ignorance of the law was an excuse, the pendulum would swing too far in the other direction. Hell, just don't inform yourself and you're good to go. The problem instead is that there are too many laws on the books and when a new one is added, no attempt is made by our lazy lawmakers to rationalize the proposed new law with existing laws. So you get a patchwork of overlapping laws that do not fit together and generally permit a DA to hit you with a million indictments. I remember talking to my local rep re: proposed gun laws. She was not aware of any of the other gun laws on the books. That is insane that someone who undertook to be a legislator is considering a new law without understanding existing laws. But unfortunately legislators get paid for new lawmaking and not going back and examining the effectiveness of old laws, particularly why they aren't being enforced. Add to that the new reality (well, it's not that new actually) where no one enforces laws they don't like and AGs re-interpret laws they don't like if it suits an agenda. Very dangerous world we live in and to be clear both Dems and Repubs are happy to play the game.
     
    JGreen, Cap'n Mike, wiryone1 and 2 others like this.
  5. KBCraig

    KBCraig NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,240
    Likes Received:
    3,775
    Location:
    Granite State of Mind
    There was another case of that today, with Gorsuch writing the opinion that says a trial is required in order to find facts and sentence someone to prison. What a concept, eh?

    "Only a jury, acting on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, may take a person's liberty," Gorsuch declared in United States v. Haymond. "Yet in this case a congressional statute compelled a federal judge to send a man to prison for a minimum of five years without empaneling a jury of his peers or requiring the government to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

    Writing in dissent, Justice Samuel Alito attacked Gorsuch for writing an opinion that "is not based on the original meaning of the Sixth Amendment, is irreconcilable with precedent, and sports rhetoric with potentially revolutionary implications."


    Gorsuch and Alito Fight Over Criminal Sentencing and the Right to Trial by Jury
     
  6. xtry51

    xtry51

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    19,727
    Likes Received:
    7,548
    Location:
    NH (CT Escapee)
    Alito needs to step away from the authoritarian sauce for a few f***ing seconds.
     
  7. Whiskeywon

    Whiskeywon NES Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2017
    Messages:
    747
    Likes Received:
    503
    Location:
    Western Massachusetts
    No f***ing kidding. But what would we expect from the man who assisted Dick Cheney in garnering & consolidating absolute power thus paving the way for Obama? Might as well be as bad as one of the liberal justices trying to take from us in different ways.
     
  8. Dench

    Dench

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,597
    Likes Received:
    4,245
    Completely insane. WTF are these people thinking?
     
  9. Boston4567

    Boston4567 NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    460
    Location:
    Merrimack Valley
    Alito has long been the worst of the conservatives on the bench.
     
  10. 42!

    42! NES Life Member NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    5,397
    Likes Received:
    2,534
    I agree with the first part of this, but consider that identifying an object is simple, knowing what someone intends or what their goal is, well that usually requires mind reading and makes it a thought crime. Also, saying that intent and goal should be considered, but then denouncing "Hate" crimes and crimes against Cops, is contradictory. Hate=intent and Cop=goal (goal is to harm cop).
     
  11. Dench

    Dench

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,597
    Likes Received:
    4,245
    Intent as in having the ability to differentiate between manslaughter and murder as an example. A death happened. Did it happen because the person was trying to murder the other person or did it happen because of unfortunate circumstances that lead to a death? Etc.

    Punching me in the face and a gay guy in the face is still a person with the intent to punch a person in the face. One being handsome and the other gay. It's the same crime at the end.

    You misunderstood what I said.
     
  12. Boston4567

    Boston4567 NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    460
    Location:
    Merrimack Valley
    Also, the presence of a particular object can be a tangible indication of intent and malice aforethought. I think it's a reasonable modifier. If you're a convicted felon and you unlawfully obtain a firearm and hold up a bank, that's very different from being a convicted felon who walks into a bank and just demands money.

    At that point you went through the trouble of obtaining the firearm, which indicates this was a planned act and that you are capable of using deadly force, even if you don't. Walking into a bank and demanding money unarmed might just be an act of impulsive desperation.
     
  13. namedpipes

    namedpipes

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    12,140
    Location:
    PREM
    If laws were unambiguous and courts actually followed the law then there'd be little need for lawyers.

    Instead we have AG's literally making up their own laws and nobody is sure enough of their ground to call her out on it.

    Even though we're in the right, she can still ruin our lives.

    How many threads on this site spend dozens or hundreds of posts analyzing some trivial point from a thousand angles just to try and see if the OP might possibly have done something slightly, ambiguously wrong?

    By that standard this is an absolutely lawless country.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2019
    JGreen and xtry51 like this.
  14. jpk

    jpk

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    12,894
    Likes Received:
    6,464
  15. xtry51

    xtry51

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    19,727
    Likes Received:
    7,548
    Location:
    NH (CT Escapee)
    While I agree on the districting aspect (feds should have no power over states) the idea you would allow foreign nationals to DIRECTLY INFLUENCE ELECTIONS is treason.

    By not allowing the question they know the result is misappropriation of representation.
     
    wiryone1, Len-2A Training and jpk like this.
  16. Dench

    Dench

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,597
    Likes Received:
    4,245
    On the other hand we all know the citizenship question is going to be apart of the/a upcoming illegal dragnet. The good ol' self incrimination question is sorta a bad idea when we look at why it's being asked. It's not being asked for any other reason than to round up the people dumb enough to answer it. It's such a conflict of interest for everyone it's a nightmare.
     
  17. xtry51

    xtry51

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    19,727
    Likes Received:
    7,548
    Location:
    NH (CT Escapee)
    I agree, but would argue non-citizens in the US do not enjoy the full protection of the constitution when they are here breaking the law.
     
  18. Dench

    Dench

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,597
    Likes Received:
    4,245
    Regardless, why have the question on the form when anyone with a brain would lie? It serves no actual statistical purpose.
     
  19. milktree

    milktree NES Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,060
    Likes Received:
    1,368
    The Constitution requires that they be counted, regardless of why they're here.

    Policy that is designed to, or has the effect of, subverting The Constitution is bad policy.
     
  20. xtry51

    xtry51

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    19,727
    Likes Received:
    7,548
    Location:
    NH (CT Escapee)
    I am open to ideas of how to curb illegals skewing the house of rep allotment.
     
    Len-2A Training likes this.
  21. Knuckle Dragger

    Knuckle Dragger NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    7,035
    Likes Received:
    3,185
    Location:
    My forest stronghold
    Succinct and pithy!
     
  22. Knuckle Dragger

    Knuckle Dragger NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    7,035
    Likes Received:
    3,185
    Location:
    My forest stronghold
    Now it's official. NYC wants to moot the case and has notified the court not only that they've changed the offending regulation, but that state law prevents them from re-implementing it.

    Letter dated July 3, 2019 of City of New York

    This sounds a lot like one of those dreaded preemption statutes that the antis dislike so much. But I guess it's okay now......
     
    xtry51, CAR, swatgig and 1 other person like this.
  23. VetteGirlMA

    VetteGirlMA NES Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,514
    Likes Received:
    2,079
    Location:
    western mass

    I think that Scotus should still take this case on. There are still unanswered constitutional questions.
     
  24. Knuckle Dragger

    Knuckle Dragger NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    7,035
    Likes Received:
    3,185
    Location:
    My forest stronghold
    SCOTUS may dismiss the case. The change to state law removes the 'capable or repetition' exception to mootness, so there's no continuing 'case or controversy'.

    Not to worry though, there are at least five of six pending 2A related petitions and more will be filed in the coming months. The odds are extremely high that at least one 2A case will be before the court in OT 2019.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2019
    Boston4567, CAR and Jason Flare like this.
  25. Boston4567

    Boston4567 NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    460
    Location:
    Merrimack Valley
    I think it's more likely than not that the antis shot themselves in the foot here in the long run.

    The court was likely prepared to explicitly recognize a right to "bear" in the same way Heller explicitly recognized a right to "keep", but it would have been a limited ruling. Taking such extraordinary measures to moot the case and remove SCOTUS's ability to expand 2A is not likely to be looked upon kindly by the conservative justices.
     
  26. Engineer

    Engineer NES Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    559
    Likes Received:
    100
    Location:
    Metro West
  27. Waher

    Waher NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    7,349
    Likes Received:
    5,207
    Location:
    BG&RA, BR&PC
    We are talking about New York. There's nothing to stop the NY Assembly from changing the state law back in the next session and the extraordinary efforts undertaken to change the laws at city and state level to contort around the case should make it clear to SCotUS that they need to make a ruling to prevent NY or any other state from engaging in similar evasive gymnastics when it suits them.
     
    drgrant likes this.
  28. Knuckle Dragger

    Knuckle Dragger NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    7,035
    Likes Received:
    3,185
    Location:
    My forest stronghold
    That petition is still pending: Mance v. Barr
    QP:
    Mance was distributed for conference on April 12th. No action has been taken, so it'll be OT 2019 before we know anything.
     
  29. swatgig

    swatgig NES Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    4,764
    Likes Received:
    3,645
    Location:
    Chained together with 999 of my associates at the
    .
    NYSRPA filed a response to the "letter" asking the court to moot the case.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...151746089_2019-7-8 NYSRPA response letter.pdf

     
    Cap'n Mike likes this.
  30. mlaboss

    mlaboss NES Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    4,041
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    God I love this.

    "What respondents may not do is seek to preclude this Court from considering the merits of issues on which this Court granted certiorari by summarily declaring themselves so confident that they have successfully deprived this Court of the power to review the decision they procured below that they have no intention of briefing or arguing this case in the ordinary course."

    Which, as best as I can tell, is legalese for "You gonna let those shitheads tell you what to do, SCOTUS? Nah, I didn't think so."
     

Share This Page