US Supreme Court OT 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
8,098
Likes
6,538
Location
BG&RA, BR&PC

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
548
Likes
473
Location
Merrimack Valley
I can only hope that Don Willett joins him on the bench. I don't care if he replaces RBG or Alito or even Thomas.
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.​

 

LittleCalm

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
2,646
Likes
655
Wow! Yes for sure. I liked this tidbit a lot:
Happy he said it.

One thing I really dislike about conservatives is the justice boners. The obsession with harsh/draconian punishment for everything possible really puts me off to a lot of conservative items. Everyone time someone says "ignorance of the law is no excuse" my eyes do a complete 360º rotation in my brain, they roll that hard. You have to be majorly ignorant to make such a comment considering all the insane laws on the books. From animal jizz to poop, you name it, you go to jail. Who the F thinks this shit up and how the hell are the penalties so high for all these stupid offences? Well, mostly justice boner Republicans.
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.
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
9,984
Likes
4,570
Location
Granite State of Mind
One thing I really dislike about conservatives is the justice boners. The obsession with harsh/draconian punishment for everything possible really puts me off to a lot of conservative items.
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
 

Whiskeywon

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jun 26, 2017
Messages
858
Likes
618
Location
Western Massachusetts
Alito needs to step away from the authoritarian sauce for a few f***ing seconds.
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.
 
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
16,142
Likes
4,723
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
Completely insane. WTF are these people thinking?
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
548
Likes
473
Location
Merrimack Valley
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
Alito has long been the worst of the conservatives on the bench.
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
5,799
Likes
2,923
As for this sort of crime - pinning additional charges onto a crime due to objects being present, its beyond asinine. If you assault someone does it really matter what you used? Shouldn't we be looking at the damage and repercussions of said damage? Also the intent and goals? This sort of thinking is right out of the hate crime or other protected classes thinking. If you attack me, an incredibly sexy, smart and attractive white male it's no big deal. Black? Hate crime. Gay? Hate crime. Cop? Protected class. Can't we all be equal under the law? WTF is going on?
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).
 
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
16,142
Likes
4,723
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).
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.
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
548
Likes
473
Location
Merrimack Valley
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, 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.
 

namedpipes

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
31,590
Likes
13,886
Location
PREM
...
In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all,"

Happy he said it.
...
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:
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
16,142
Likes
4,723
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.
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.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
20,211
Likes
8,418
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
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.
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.
 
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
16,142
Likes
4,723
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.
Regardless, why have the question on the form when anyone with a brain would lie? It serves no actual statistical purpose.
 

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
4,365
Likes
1,747
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.
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.
 

Knuckle Dragger

NES Member
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,112
Likes
3,403
Location
My forest stronghold
Not so fast. NYC is now trying to moot the case by propose a rule change that would address plaintiffs' claims. Motion To Hold Briefing Schedule in Abeyance.

Plaintiffs could object arguing that the alleged violations are capable of repetition. I think we're going to see a lot of this. The antis are increasingly willing to give up small ground in order to evade any type of review that could set precedent in our favor.
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

Second, on June 19 and 20, 2019, the New York State Assembly and Senate, respectively, passed Bill A7752, which is also attached. This new legislation, set to take effect immediately upon the Governor’s signature, amends the section of the New York Penal Law regulating handgun licenses. As explained in the sponsor’s memorandum, the amendments allow holders of premises licenses “to transport their pistol or revolver from one location where they may legally possess such weapon directly to another location where they may legally possess such weapon, including another dwelling or place of business where they have a license, an indoor or outdoor shooting range, or a shooting competition.” These new amendments will also operate notwithstanding any inconsistent state or local law—though, of course, they are consistent with the newly revised city regulation.
This sounds a lot like one of those dreaded preemption statutes that the antis dislike so much. But I guess it's okay now......
 

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
2,779
Likes
2,592
Location
western mass
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......

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

Knuckle Dragger

NES Member
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,112
Likes
3,403
Location
My forest stronghold
I think that Scotus should still take this case on. There are still unanswered constitutional questions.
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:

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
548
Likes
473
Location
Merrimack Valley
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.
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.
 

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
8,098
Likes
6,538
Location
BG&RA, BR&PC
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.
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.
 

Knuckle Dragger

NES Member
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,112
Likes
3,403
Location
My forest stronghold
Hmmm - Interstate Sales ?
That petition is still pending: Mance v. Barr
QP:
Whether prohibiting interstate handgun sales, facially or as-applied to consumers whose home jurisdictions authorize such transactions, violates the Second Amendment and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Mance was distributed for conference on April 12th. No action has been taken, so it'll be OT 2019 before we know anything.
 

swatgig

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
5,000
Likes
4,231
Location
In the shallow end of the gene pool
.
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.
NYSRPA filed a response to the "letter" asking the court to moot the case.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/107394/20190708151746089_2019-7-8 NYSRPA response letter.pdf

This time around, respondents point to two actions, neither of which has the force of the law. The first is a set of amendments to the Rules of New York City that were passed on June 21, 2019, and will not take effect for (at least) another two weeks, on July 21, 2019. The second is legislation that the New York State Assembly and Senate passed two weeks ago, on June 19 and 20, 2019, respectively, and that the Governor has yet to sign into law. Neither of these actions has changed the governing law in New York at this point. Once again, then, respondents’ letter is both premature and procedurally improper.
 

mlaboss

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
4,118
Likes
1,668
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."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom