The Supremes

[Chad Fuck 17,811]

2 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

The next stop on the “state’s rights” roadmap is maybe we shouldn’t even be United 

No shit.  Why do we have to revisit this bullshit again?

[Pig Bellmont 8,739]

44 minutes ago, WBT said:

They didn't get rid of ineffective assistance of counsel.  They said it's up to the states to decide on it.

Tell me you’re not a lawyer without telling me you’re not a lawyer 

[wildcat09 29,420]

1 hour ago, WBT said:

They didn't get rid of ineffective assistance of counsel.  They said it's up to the states to decide on it.

It's funny when people say shit like this to try to pretend they're smart when all it reveals is they have absolutely no fucking clue what they're talking about. This decision in no way left it up to the states to "decide" what constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. That's not what these cases were about at all. These cases were about whether criminal defendants who had been convicted in state courts because they'd received ineffective assistance of counsel could appeal to federal courts to have their state convictions thrown out. "They said it's up to the states to decide on it" is the dumbest possible summary of what happened.

[elfenix 34,338]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

The next stop on the “state’s rights” roadmap is maybe we shouldn’t even be United 

there's a contingent in this country that thinks it all went wrong when we replaced the articles of confederation with with constitution. 

[GopherRock 1,770]

4 hours ago, South Austin said:

Shit, they overturned Roe v. Wade and drew a roadmap for doing away with Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.  Why not get rid of ineffective assistance of counsel?

They didn't just draw a nap to overturn those three. They drew a map to overturn every right that relies on a 14th Amendment Supreme Court case. These include, but are not limited to, privacy, interstate travel, interracial marriage, birthright citizenship, legal counsel even if one can't afford it, and the right to not have illegally seized evidence used against you. 

With this Court, always assume the worst case scenario. 

[Brisketexan 105,438]

Just now, GopherRock said:

They didn't just draw a nap to overturn those three. They drew a map to overturn every right that relies on a 14th Amendment Supreme Court case. These include, but are not limited to, privacy, interstate travel, interracial marriage, birthright citizenship, legal counsel even if one can't afford it, and the right to not have illegally seized evidence used against you. 

With this Court, always assume the worst case scenario. 

Bingo.

Oh, and they made a special point to say "but we're not going after those things."  Which 100% means they are going after all those things.

[Chad Fuck 17,811]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Bingo.

Oh, and they made a special point to say "but we're not going after those things."  Which 100% means they are going after all those things.

[tx 3 putt 77,535]

12 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

They didn't just draw a nap to overturn those three. They drew a map to overturn every right that relies on a 14th Amendment Supreme Court case. These include, but are not limited to, privacy, interstate travel, interracial marriage, birthright citizenship, legal counsel even if one can't afford it, and the right to not have illegally seized evidence used against you. 

With this Court, always assume the worst case scenario. 

 

wait a minute here, per our surly maga gqp posters the supremes are not going to do that !!!!!

[WBT 20,672]

3 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Tell me you’re not a lawyer without telling me you’re not a lawyer 

 

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

It's funny when people say shit like this to try to pretend they're smart when all it reveals is they have absolutely no fucking clue what they're talking about. This decision in no way left it up to the states to "decide" what constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. That's not what these cases were about at all. These cases were about whether criminal defendants who had been convicted in state courts because they'd received ineffective assistance of counsel could appeal to federal courts to have their state convictions thrown out. "They said it's up to the states to decide on it" is the dumbest possible summary of what happened.

And that's fair.  Definitely not a lawyer nor pretending to be smart.  The post about "get[ting] rid of ineffective counsel" along with the usual doom and gloom tone here caused me to roll my eyes and skim an article about this...poorly it turns out. 

Let me try again...so the decision finds that there cannot be federal relief to ineffective counsel in post-conviction state court appeals.  Ineffective counsel in the initial trial would still be heard in state court appeal.  Better?

[SimonBolivar 10,960]

On 5/19/2022 at 9:39 AM, Johnny Sack said:

 He is saying...

Like anyone could even know that.

[wildcat09 29,420]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Bingo.

Oh, and they made a special point to say "but we're not going after those things."  Which 100% means they are going after all those things.

Esto. I wrote this in the abortion thread last December:

Quote

I'm mostly uninterested in debates about the Constitutional source of the right to an abortion and whether the Court should've more clearly stated that the right arises from a specific amendment. The only criticism that is leveled at Roe that I really give any respect toward is the argument that the state's interest in protecting unborn life is so strong that it must always prevail over a woman's right to get an abortion. I disagree with it vehemently, but at least it's a serious argument. The more popular argument on the right though, that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution at all, is utter nonsense. A right to privacy is inherent in multiple rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Constitutional interpretation requires more than hitting Control+F and searching for "privacy."

And this:

Quote

A pretty big body of SCOTUS caselaw recognizes that a right to privacy can be inferred from the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments. For the conservative justices to pretend that they just can't understand any of those cases or their reasoning and go "I'm looking for the word 'privacy' here and just can't find it!" should be beyond offensive to anyone who takes the legal system seriously. Hell, I don't even take our legal system seriously and I find it offensive. They have no real fundamental objection to a Constitutional right to privacy; they won't and can't actually argue with the reasoning in prior cases that supports that right. They just don't like it because it undergirds the right to an abortion and other rights they also hate, so privacy has to go.

It would have been easy for them to find that despite the fundamental right to privacy, states have a compelling state interest in protecting fetal life (this might be what Roberts wanted to do). Alito's opinion doesn't do that, though. Instead, Alito spends dozens and dozens of pages engaging in shitty historiography (and misrepresenting his sources in the process) in order to assault the legal foundations of the right to privacy and all of the rights the Court has held to come out of that, and determines that a state must only meet rational basis for an abortion restriction to be valid. And then he adds some brief language saying "oh don't worry, we won't extend this to anything else," a promise the conservatives on this Court have broken multiple times before. His intent is completely clear.

[hobbes2702 13,078]

5 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

It's funny when people say shit like this to try to pretend they're smart when all it reveals is they have absolutely no fucking clue what they're talking about. This decision in no way left it up to the states to "decide" what constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. That's not what these cases were about at all. These cases were about whether criminal defendants who had been convicted in state courts because they'd received ineffective assistance of counsel could appeal to federal courts to have their state convictions thrown out. "They said it's up to the states to decide on it" is the dumbest possible summary of what happened.

Correct me if I’m wrong but in this case, didn’t they basically say you have to appeal through the state court before the fed court? And Arizona I believe doesn’t have ineffective counsel as an option for appeal? So you can only appeal that way to the feds?

[SKJ 1,311]

On 5/14/2022 at 10:20 AM, Bateshorn said:

Even though you are on a break, The problem with your logic, which should be obvious, is you want the 2nd amendment to cover all the literally and rhetorics children and dependents  of this technology and philosophy, without extending it to any of the other amendments.

Thats a logical fallacy.  If you want to lock one amendment in place, you have to lock all of them. So this technology is legal, in it’s original form.  But if you are going to accept Alito’s arguments about original and deeply held beliefs and reject the “living Constitution “. And especially a originalist approach: The SAW  or AR-15 are not consistent with that view and is subject to full and thorough regulation. The court must, under Alito’s thinking, limit itself to only debates about technology and existent firearms at the time of ratification.

But,  if you look historically,  abortion was known by the founders,  since it had been preformed much earlier than the 1700's yet they felt no need to prohibit it because it was a not- so- common procedure of the time,  and it wasn't seen as a living being at the time,  since it was not post partum... and yet the knowledge of a repeating rifle should be taken into account with gun control,  and all science should be ignored.  

But of course,  the most basic argument against originalism was that slavery was ratified among the several states.. 

On 5/14/2022 at 11:10 AM, Bateshorn said:

Well, it’s what obviously flawed in his logic about Abortion (if not Roe): there is zero mention of the unborn in the constitution. None. The first mention is in the citizenship clause in the 14th. Thus the unborn have no rights under a textual reading of the constitution. Or really an originalist, since the unborn are never discussed in the Federalist papers.  But women do have due process rights.  Thus even if you adopt a reading of the constitution that somehow gives legislatures the right to protect the unborn, it must follow the due process rights of women, which would give them the right to learn, understand, and resolve a pregnancy in advance of any state action.  I can see a reading of Dobbs that bans abortion after 15 weeks, but not before, because to do so denies a woman reasonable due process. A total ban has always, to my mind, been unconstitutional since the 14th amendment was passed.  
 

And this says nothing of unenumerated rights.  

And yet here we are arriving at the thought that amendments mean something to the constitution, and that substantive due process is of no concern... so,  also, see above,  but yet here we are,  about to ask own slaves again? If so,  do we also ignore women's right to vote?

They've tied themselves in to so many knots that they shouldn't be able to functionality write anything,  much less an opinion...

On 5/14/2022 at 5:15 PM, fattyflattie said:

Well the supremes haven’t shit down their leg in 48 hours or so. 

Just wait for this newest ruling... that innocence isn't enough to overturn a conviction.  . It's amazing

[SKJ 1,311]

On 5/16/2022 at 9:59 AM, wildcat09 said:

 

For all of Roberts' efforts to maintain an appearance of legitimacy for the Court, he's pretty comfortable legalizing outright bribery.

Robert's only wants to outwardly give the perception that the courts are not political.  He only wants people to think that they're not a political entity. 

And then he wants to act in the most historically bullshit ways. 

On 5/17/2022 at 11:30 AM, Dutchrudder said:

Sooooo, that means Trump could take out a billion dollar loan to fund his 2024 campaign, and pay it back later with "donations" post-election? 

Or he could get a lot of free speech from companies to peddle influence,  err gift a payback of any loans regardless of they were actually for a campaign or not. 

Money is now absolutely free speech, and all bribes and grift proceeds are covered in the first amendment

On 5/17/2022 at 2:29 PM, Brisketexan said:

What's going to be FASCINATING is how this SCOTUS reads "full faith and credit" completely out of the Constitution:

Alito will write the opinion.  "Because, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, there was no longstanding historical recognition of same-sex marriage, a state-granted same-sex marriage cannot possibly be a "public act" to which the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution was intended to apply, and therefore, states that do not wish to do so do NOT need to give full faith and credit to a same-sex marriage from another state."

Oh, and remember how a mere week ago, the Alito apologists were telling us that in no way does the Dodd  opinion mean the SCOTUS is coming for Obergefell, I mean, Alito even SAID he wasn't gonna do that?  It was a lie.  Like everything they say is a lie.

Duh

[elfenix 34,338]

9 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Alito spends dozens and dozens of pages engaging in shitty historiography

just like his hero scalia did in heller. 

[SKJ 1,311]

On 5/17/2022 at 5:39 PM, Ojo Rojo said:

To me, the Supreme Court is the canary in the coal mine of democracy. It's very fragile. It's the last line of defense against tyranny. As I've said before, I do not believe the justices themselves are political actors. But the people who are responsible for putting them there certainly are. That is why Mitch McConnell dying a very painful, very public death would not bother me in the least. When Republicans started treating politics like a bloodsport, with a win at all costs attitude and the belief that it's okay to impose your will on others no matter what (hey, that's what winners do!), that is when our democracy was in serious jeopardy. We haven't reached the end or the bottom, I don't believe, but we're close. The outright theft of a seat on the Supreme Court put us close to the end. The pendulum is either going to swing back the other way or the U.S. will become a fascist state. True freedom, the way the Constitution actually means it, will no longer exist if the far right wins. There will be no justice, no due process. There will be persecution. There will be lots and lots of suffering and death.

Yeah, except that the court is completely and brazenly political. 

5 out of 6 right wing justices are groomed,  and became members of the Federalist society...

They brazenly lied about their intentions in their hearings

Then we get to the overt acts of uncle Clarence ruckus Thomas and his insane wife,  his refusal to recuse cases where she has material interests...

Oh, and remember that hokey shit where is better that 100 go free than 1 innocent man is convicted?  They ruled that innocence is not enough to overturn a conviction...

Is bullshit.  They're the arm of the fascists that gets to grant all the fascists powers... it's literally all they do,  is political bullshit

[Captainant 27,826]

CNN: Supreme Court leak investigation heats up as clerks are asked for phone records in unprecedented move

Quote

CNN — 

Supreme Court officials are escalating their search for the source of the leaked draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, taking steps to require law clerks to provide cell phone records and sign affidavits, three sources with knowledge of the efforts have told CNN.

Some clerks are apparently so alarmed over the moves, particularly the sudden requests for private cell data, that they have begun exploring whether to hire outside counsel.

The court’s moves are unprecedented and the most striking development to date in the investigation into who might have provided Politico with the draft opinion it published on May 2. The probe has intensified the already high tensions at the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority is poised to roll back a half-century of abortion rights and privacy protections.

Chief Justice John Roberts met with law clerks as a group after the breach, CNN has learned, but it is not known whether any systematic individual interviews have occurred.

Lawyers outside the court who have become aware of the new inquiries related to cell phone details warn of potential intrusiveness on clerks’ personal activities, irrespective of any disclosure to the news media, and say they may feel the need to obtain independent counsel.

“That’s what similarly situated individuals would do in virtually any other government investigation,” said one appellate lawyer with experience in investigations and knowledge of the new demands on law clerks. “It would be hypocritical for the Supreme Court to prevent its own employees from taking advantage of that fundamental legal protection.”

Sources familiar with efforts underway say the exact language of the affidavits or the intended scope of that cell phone search – content or time period covered – is not yet clear.

The Supreme Court did not respond to a CNN request on Monday for comment related to the phone searches and affidavits.

The search continues! I wonder if Ginny is starting to sweat yet

[WhatTheBuck 28,806]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I wonder if Ginny is starting to sweat yet

She’s not.

[Hookah Horns 3,083]

Just look at this hog. I'm certain she's sweating at this very moment. 

[Gap03 3,337]

17 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Just look at this hog. I'm certain she's sweating at this very moment. 

I believe the preferred term is "ditchpig" ...

[Bama Chick 28,596]

lol if I never do anything else, just put on my tombstone that I taught a bunch of dudes 800+ miles away from me the word “ditchpig”.

[HRSchenker 2,274]

They just blocked Texas from enforcing the social media law. The four justices that would decline the application to vacate the stay are Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and......Kagan. 

[wildcat09 29,420]

Kagan with some very strong "am I the only one who gives a shit about the fucking rules!?" energy.

[wildcat09 29,420]

On another matter, Elie Mystal with what is probably an accurate take:

 

I bet they hold this to the last possible minute now and just release it with Dobbs.

[Satchel 6,949]

We Clerked for Justices Scalia and Stevens. America Is Getting Heller Wrong.

 

By Kate Shaw and John Bash

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/opinion/supreme-court-heller-guns.html

Ms. Shaw is a professor of law at Cardozo Law School. Mr. Bash is an attorney in private practice in Austin, Texas.

In the summer of 2008, the Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to gun ownership. We were law clerks to Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, and Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the lead dissent.

Justices Scalia and Stevens clashed over the meaning of the Second Amendment. Justice Scalia’s majority opinion held that the amendment protected an individual right to keep a usable handgun at home, which meant the District of Columbia law prohibiting such possession was unconstitutional. Justice Stevens argued that those protections extended only to firearm ownership in conjunction with service in a “well-regulated militia,” in the words of the Second Amendment.

We each assisted a boss we revered in drafting his opinion, and we’re able to acknowledge that work without breaching any confidences. Justice Scalia had a practice of signing one opinion for a clerk each term, which permitted the clerk to disclose having worked on that case, and for John, that was Heller; Justice Stevens noted in his 2019 autobiography, “The Making of a Justice,” that Kate was the Heller clerk in his chambers.

We continue to hold very different views about both gun regulation and how the Constitution should be interpreted. Kate believes in a robust set of gun safety measures to reduce the unconscionable number of shootings in this country. John is skeptical of laws that would make criminals out of millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens who believe that firearm ownership is essential to protecting their families, and he is not convinced that new measures like bans on widely owned firearms would stop people who are willing to commit murder from obtaining guns

Kate believes that Justice Stevens’s dissent in Heller provided a better account of both the text and history of the Second Amendment and that in any event, the method of historical inquiry the majority prescribes should lead to the court upholding most gun safety measures, including the New York law pending before the Supreme Court. John believes that Heller correctly construed the original meaning of the Second Amendment and is one of the most important decisions in U.S. history. We disagree about whether Heller should be extended to protect citizens who wish to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense and, if so, how states may regulate that activity — issues that the Supreme Court is set to decide in the New York case in the next month or so.

But despite our fundamental disagreements, we are both concerned that Heller has been misused in important policy debates about our nation’s gun laws. In the 14 years since the Heller decision, Congress has not enacted significant new lawsregulating firearms, despite progressives’ calls for such measures in the wake of mass shootings. Many politicians cite Heller as the reason. But they are wrong.

Heller does not totally disable government from passing laws that seek to prevent the kind of atrocities we saw in Uvalde, Texas. And we believe that politicians on both sides of the aisle have (intentionally or not) misconstrued Heller. Some progressives, for example, have blamed the Second Amendment, Heller or the Supreme Court for mass shootings. And some conservatives have justified contested policy positions merely by pointing to Heller, as if the opinion resolved the issues

Neither is fair. Rather, we think it’s clear that every member of the court on which we clerked joined an opinion, either majority or dissent, that agreed that the Constitution leaves elected officials an array of policy options when it comes to gun regulation.

Justice Scalia — the foremost proponent of originalism, who throughout his tenure stressed the limited role of courts in difficult policy debates — could not have been clearer in the closing passage of Heller that “the problem of handgun violence in this country” is serious and that the Constitution leaves the government with “a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.” Heller merely established the constitutional baseline that the government may not disarm citizens in their homes. The opinion expressly recognized “presumptively lawful” regulations such as “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” as well as bans on carrying weapons in “sensitive places,” like schools, and it noted with approval the “historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” Heller also recognized the immense public interest in “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.

Nothing in Heller casts doubt on the permissibility of background check laws or requires the so-called Charleston loophole, which allows individuals to purchase firearms even without completed background checks. Nor does Heller prohibit giving law enforcement officers more effective tools and greater resources to disarm people who have proved themselves to be violent or mentally ill, as long as due process is observed. Heller also gives the government at least some leeway to restrict the kinds of firearms that can be purchased — few would claim a constitutional right to own a grenade launcher, for example — although where that line could be constitutionally drawn is a matter of disagreement, including between us. Indeed, President Donald Trump banned bump stocks in the wake of the mass shooting in Las Vegas.

Most of the obstacles to gun regulations are political and policy based, not legal; it’s laws that never get enacted, rather than ones that are struck down, because of an unduly expansive reading of Heller. We are aware of no evidence that any perpetrator of a mass shooting was able to obtain a firearm because of a law struck down under Heller. But Heller looms over most debates about gun regulation, and it often serves as a useful foil for those who would like to deflect responsibility — either for their policy choice to oppose a particular gun regulation proposal or for their failure to convince their fellow legislators and citizens that the proposal should be enacted.

The closest we’ve come to major new federal gun regulation in recent years came in the post-Sandy Hook effort to create expanded background checks. The most common reason offered by opponents of that legislation? That it would violate the Second Amendment. But that’s just not supported by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the amendment in Heller. If opponents of background checks for firearm sales believe that such requirements are unlikely to reduce violence while imposing unwarranted burdens on lawful gun owners, they should make that case openly, not rest on a mistaken view of Heller.

Justices don’t control the way their writings are interpreted by later courts and other institutions; certainly law clerks don’t. So we’re not asserting that our views on Heller are in any way authoritative. But we know the opinions in the case inside and out.

As the nation enters yet another agonizing conversation about gun regulation in the wake of the Uvalde tragedy, all sides should focus on the value judgments and empirical assumptions at the heart of the policy debate, and they should take moral ownership of their positions. The genius of our Constitution is that it leaves many of the hardest questions to the democratic process.

 

[sidis 9,832]

35 minutes ago, Satchel said:

We Clerked for Justices Scalia and Stevens. America Is Getting Heller Wrong.

 

By Kate Shaw and John Bash

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/opinion/supreme-court-heller-guns.html

Ms. Shaw is a professor of law at Cardozo Law School. Mr. Bash is an attorney in private practice in Austin, Texas.

In the summer of 2008, the Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to gun ownership. We were law clerks to Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, and Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the lead dissent.

Justices Scalia and Stevens clashed over the meaning of the Second Amendment. Justice Scalia’s majority opinion held that the amendment protected an individual right to keep a usable handgun at home, which meant the District of Columbia law prohibiting such possession was unconstitutional. Justice Stevens argued that those protections extended only to firearm ownership in conjunction with service in a “well-regulated militia,” in the words of the Second Amendment.

We each assisted a boss we revered in drafting his opinion, and we’re able to acknowledge that work without breaching any confidences. Justice Scalia had a practice of signing one opinion for a clerk each term, which permitted the clerk to disclose having worked on that case, and for John, that was Heller; Justice Stevens noted in his 2019 autobiography, “The Making of a Justice,” that Kate was the Heller clerk in his chambers.

We continue to hold very different views about both gun regulation and how the Constitution should be interpreted. Kate believes in a robust set of gun safety measures to reduce the unconscionable number of shootings in this country. John is skeptical of laws that would make criminals out of millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens who believe that firearm ownership is essential to protecting their families, and he is not convinced that new measures like bans on widely owned firearms would stop people who are willing to commit murder from obtaining guns

Kate believes that Justice Stevens’s dissent in Heller provided a better account of both the text and history of the Second Amendment and that in any event, the method of historical inquiry the majority prescribes should lead to the court upholding most gun safety measures, including the New York law pending before the Supreme Court. John believes that Heller correctly construed the original meaning of the Second Amendment and is one of the most important decisions in U.S. history. We disagree about whether Heller should be extended to protect citizens who wish to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense and, if so, how states may regulate that activity — issues that the Supreme Court is set to decide in the New York case in the next month or so.

But despite our fundamental disagreements, we are both concerned that Heller has been misused in important policy debates about our nation’s gun laws. In the 14 years since the Heller decision, Congress has not enacted significant new lawsregulating firearms, despite progressives’ calls for such measures in the wake of mass shootings. Many politicians cite Heller as the reason. But they are wrong.

Heller does not totally disable government from passing laws that seek to prevent the kind of atrocities we saw in Uvalde, Texas. And we believe that politicians on both sides of the aisle have (intentionally or not) misconstrued Heller. Some progressives, for example, have blamed the Second Amendment, Heller or the Supreme Court for mass shootings. And some conservatives have justified contested policy positions merely by pointing to Heller, as if the opinion resolved the issues

Neither is fair. Rather, we think it’s clear that every member of the court on which we clerked joined an opinion, either majority or dissent, that agreed that the Constitution leaves elected officials an array of policy options when it comes to gun regulation.

Justice Scalia — the foremost proponent of originalism, who throughout his tenure stressed the limited role of courts in difficult policy debates — could not have been clearer in the closing passage of Heller that “the problem of handgun violence in this country” is serious and that the Constitution leaves the government with “a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.” Heller merely established the constitutional baseline that the government may not disarm citizens in their homes. The opinion expressly recognized “presumptively lawful” regulations such as “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” as well as bans on carrying weapons in “sensitive places,” like schools, and it noted with approval the “historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” Heller also recognized the immense public interest in “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.

Nothing in Heller casts doubt on the permissibility of background check laws or requires the so-called Charleston loophole, which allows individuals to purchase firearms even without completed background checks. Nor does Heller prohibit giving law enforcement officers more effective tools and greater resources to disarm people who have proved themselves to be violent or mentally ill, as long as due process is observed. Heller also gives the government at least some leeway to restrict the kinds of firearms that can be purchased — few would claim a constitutional right to own a grenade launcher, for example — although where that line could be constitutionally drawn is a matter of disagreement, including between us. Indeed, President Donald Trump banned bump stocks in the wake of the mass shooting in Las Vegas.

Most of the obstacles to gun regulations are political and policy based, not legal; it’s laws that never get enacted, rather than ones that are struck down, because of an unduly expansive reading of Heller. We are aware of no evidence that any perpetrator of a mass shooting was able to obtain a firearm because of a law struck down under Heller. But Heller looms over most debates about gun regulation, and it often serves as a useful foil for those who would like to deflect responsibility — either for their policy choice to oppose a particular gun regulation proposal or for their failure to convince their fellow legislators and citizens that the proposal should be enacted.

The closest we’ve come to major new federal gun regulation in recent years came in the post-Sandy Hook effort to create expanded background checks. The most common reason offered by opponents of that legislation? That it would violate the Second Amendment. But that’s just not supported by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the amendment in Heller. If opponents of background checks for firearm sales believe that such requirements are unlikely to reduce violence while imposing unwarranted burdens on lawful gun owners, they should make that case openly, not rest on a mistaken view of Heller.

Justices don’t control the way their writings are interpreted by later courts and other institutions; certainly law clerks don’t. So we’re not asserting that our views on Heller are in any way authoritative. But we know the opinions in the case inside and out.

As the nation enters yet another agonizing conversation about gun regulation in the wake of the Uvalde tragedy, all sides should focus on the value judgments and empirical assumptions at the heart of the policy debate, and they should take moral ownership of their positions. The genius of our Constitution is that it leaves many of the hardest questions to the democratic process.

 

do these two fucking idiots realize that heller was decided in a far, far, far more reasonable court than its current makeup of utter dipshits?  i love the notion that "oh, everyone is over-applying heller as an excuse for not doing anything.  doing something wouldn't be struck down by the supreme court just because of heller!"

umm, yeah...let's take a case to the ussc right now on the constitutionality of gun rights and see how that goes.  john bash can get fucked for this lame ass attempt to absolve himself and his complicity in this shit.

[Gap03 3,337]

2 minutes ago, sidis said:

john bash can get fucked for this lame ass attempt to absolve himself and his complicity in this shit.

 

Quote

The genius of our Constitution is that it leaves many of the hardest questions to the democratic process.

With an extra side of "eat shit, motherfucker" for this piece of shit that had the audacity to make this statement after clerking for Scalia, whose participation in the gutting of the VRA and Citizens United will likely succeed in killing off democracy here once and for all ...

[Satchel 6,949]

Courts are already citing Heller in invalidating long standing gun laws:

Writing for the majority, Judge Ryan D. Nelson stated that “young adults have Second Amendment protections as persons who are part of a national community.” The 100-page decision extensively examined the history of youth owning weapons, going back to the early days of English colonists in the United States, and extensively cited the Supreme Court’s landmark gun rights case District of Columbia v. Heller. It reversed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, which had upheld the law on initial challenge

[elfenix 34,338]

brow furrowing++

Quote

Trump officials ridiculed 'easy mark' Susan Collins as they tricked her into backing Kavanaugh: report

 

https://www.rawstory.com/susan-collins-2657452563/

Edited June 3, 2022 by elfenix

[bolverk 29,728]

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,900]

is she progressively getting older in each one?

[Neonmoon 38,130]

Good. I hope she dies in the next one 

[deac_tracy 516]

We shit on Collins a lot on this site but we should be giving just as amount of shit to the stupid Mainers who keep buying her schtick and voting her in. The fact she easily bamboozles Dem voters every 6 years into voting for her is mind boggling to me especially in 2020. Sara Gideon was a good candidate. 

Every Maine Biden/Collins voter should go play in traffic.

[tx 3 putt 77,535]

10 minutes ago, deac_tracy said:

We shit on Collins a lot on this site but we should be giving just as amount of shit to the stupid Mainers who keep buying her schtick and voting her in. The fact she easily bamboozles Dem voters every 6 years into voting for her is mind boggling to me especially in 2020. Sara Gideon was a good candidate. 

Every Maine Biden/Collins voter should go play in traffic.

fuck her, she needs to pass away soon since she wants to keep that seat for life 

[WhatTheBuck 28,806]

On 6/3/2022 at 4:55 PM, bolverk said:

Where do, “I believe the President has learned from this case,” and, “I believe he will be much more cautious in the future,” fall on that scale?

Right, Susan, that was some lesson he learned you fucking phony.

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,151]

More coming out about the sect ACB belongs to.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/06/people-of-praise-accused-child-abuse-amy-coney-barrett?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=soc_568&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1654508947
 

Quote

The founder of the People of Praise, a secretive charismatic Christian group that counts the supreme court justice Amy Coney Barrett as a member, was described in a sworn affidavit filed in the 1990s as exerting almost total control over one of the group’s female members, including making all decisions about her finances and dating relationships.

The court documents also described alleged instances of a sexualized atmosphere in the home of the founder, Kevin Ranaghan, and his wife, Dorothy Ranaghan.

The description of the Ranaghans and accusations involving their intimate behavior were contained in a 1993 proceeding in which a woman, Cynthia Carnick, said that she did not want her five minor children to have visitations with their father, John Roger Carnick, who was then a member of the People of Praise, in the Ranaghan household or in their presence, because she believed it was not in her children’s “best interest”. Cynthia Carnick also described inappropriate incidents involving the couple and the Ranaghan children. The matter was eventually settled between the parties.

Barrett, 50, lived with Dorothy and Kevin Ranaghan in their nine-bedroom South Bend, Indiana, home while she attended law school, according to public records. The justice – who was then known as Amy Coney – graduated from Notre Dame Law School in 1997 and two years later married her husband, Jesse Barrett, who also appears to have lived in the Ranaghan household. There is no indication that Amy Coney Barrett lived in the house at the time when the Carnick children were visiting or witnessed any of the alleged behavior described in the court documents.

The examination of the People of Praise’s history and attitude towards women comes as a majority of the supreme court – including Barrett – appear poised to reverse Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that made abortion legal across the US.

Cynthia Carnick stated in the documents that she had witnessed Dorothy Ranaghan tie the arms and legs of two of the Ranaghans’ daughters – who were three and five at the time the incidents were allegedly witnessed – to their crib with a necktie. She also said that the Ranaghans allegedly practiced “sexual displays” in front of their children and other adults, such as Dorothy Ranaghan lying with her clothes on and “rocking” on top of Kevin Ranaghan in their TV room.

Cynthia Carnick – who no longer uses Carnick as her last name – declined to comment but said that she stood by the statement she made at the time.

In an affidavit that supported Cynthia Carnick’s written statement, a woman named Colette Humphrey said she had lived with Kevin and Dorothy Ranaghan from 1973 to 1978, when she was a member of the People of Praise, and confirmed she had witnessed incidents of inappropriate sexual expression.

Humphrey also wrote in her statement: “When I was part of the People of Praise I was in full life submission to Kevin Ranaghan, under full obedience to him and he exercised this authority over most areas of my life. For example, we were ‘in common’ financially, which meant that I had to hand over my paycheck to Kevin Ranaghan and he would decide on how that paycheck would be used. Kevin Ranaghan controlled my dating relationships, deciding who and when I should date.”

Humphrey – who now uses a different surname – did not respond to a request for comment left at her residence.

A third woman, Susan Reynolds, said in a sworn statement that she lived in the Ranaghan household, and that she had at one point been “shocked” to hear that Kevin Ranaghan sometimes showered with two of his daughters, who were 10 or 11 at the time. She said in her statement she was later told by Dorothy Ranaghan that Kevin had “decided to quit showering with them” after Reynolds had questioned Dorothy about the practice.

The Ranaghans did not file any affidavits in connection to the 1993 proceeding, to which they were not a party.

Dorothy Ranaghan declined to comment to the Guardian. Kevin Ranaghan said: “These allegations are nearly three decades old, outlandish, and completely without merit. We have a loving and affectionate marriage of 55 years and have welcomed dozens of people into our home as part of our religious faith and commitment to service to God.”

A spokesperson representing the Ranaghans sent an emailed statement to the Guardian on behalf of the couple’s six adult children. It said they were “insulted by false and misleading statements about our childhood relationships with our parents from decades ago”. “We are part of a loving family and bringing these preposterous claims up now is hurtful and irresponsible.”

People of Praise said in a statement: “Since 1967 Kevin and Dorothy Ranaghan have been known and respected for their tireless work sharing the free gift of the Holy Spirit with hundreds of thousands of people around the world. We are proud that they are members and leaders of the People of Praise.”

The claims about the Ranaghans’ behavior and Kevin Ranaghan’s alleged control over at least one former member of People of Praise is coming to light two years after the Guardian first reported that the group had hired a law firm to conduct an “independent” investigation into decades-old claims of sexual abuse against minors by some members of the Christian faith group.

Since then, at least one alleged victim who cooperated with the investigation has been told that the inquiry into sexual abuse claims by the law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan has been concluded, but that a written report of its findings would not be released to alleged victims or to the public.

When one alleged victim of sexual abuse, who spoke to the Guardian but asked not to be named, asked about the investigation into her own case, lawyer Diane Doolittle of Quinn Emanuel allegedly told her that at least some of the individuals who had been interviewed about the allegations “didn’t recall the details” and that it had been “difficult” to get information.

The South Bend-based group is a covenanted community, which means that members have entered a “covenant commitment” to live together – sometimes families and single members can live in a single household – and are expected to share portions of their income and regularly attend hours-long private prayer meetings, which can include exorcisms and speaking in tongues. The group has about 1,700 members, is mostly Catholic but is open to all Christians, and espouses conservative views on gender. It opposes same-sex marriage and only men can serve on its board of governors or as coordinators, who lead different branches of the community.

The Washington Post reported in 2020 that a People of Praise 2010 directory showed Barrett served as a “handmaid”, a female adviser to other female members. Barrett also served on the Trinity Schools board, whose members must belong to People of Praise, from 2015 to 2017, at a time when the schools effectively barred admission to children of same-sex parents and – according to the AP – “made it plain that openly gay and lesbian teachers weren’t welcome in the classroom”.

Doolittle did not respond to an emailed request for comment. People of Praise said in a statement: “The independent review by Quinn Emmanuel was concluded more than a year ago, and meetings regarding the review have taken place.”

The Guardian sought a comment from Amy Coney Barrett’s chambers through the supreme court press office, but did not receive a response.

In June 2021, four victims of alleged sexual or physical abuse in the People of Praise published an open letter in the South Bend Tribune calling for reforms within the faith group. The suggested reforms included public acknowledgment that there had been a “systemic failure to protect People of Praise children from abuse”, public naming of all individuals who have been “credibly accused of abuse” or “concealing abuse within People of Praise or its schools”, and placing an equal number of women in the highest leadership positions in the group, and giving them an “equal vote in all of the group’s decisions”. The letter noted that the Catholic church has publicly named individuals who have credibly been accused of abuse.

Barrett, who is Catholic, has never publicly been asked about her membership in People of Praise, which first came to light in a New York Times article in 2017, after Barrett, a former law professor at Notre Dame, was nominated by Donald Trump to serve as a judge on the US court of appeal for the seventh circuit. She was confirmed and then later, in 2020, was nominated and confirmed to serve on the supreme court after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Barrett has said that her religious convictions, including her previously stated views opposing Roe v Wade, had no bearing on her role as a judge and would not affect her impartiality.

The justice’s involvement in People of Praise became known publicly in 2017 only after one former member, Kevin Connolly, said he brought the story to the New York Times. He did so, he told the Guardian, because he believed it was important for the public to be aware of and understand her affiliation with the group. He was also one of the four authors of the open letter sent to the South Bend Tribune.

Connolly, who is the brother of the People of Praise’s chief spokesperson, Sean Connolly, told the Washington Post in 2021 that his father, who was then a member of People of Praise, was violent and once kicked him in the face when he was 10, leaving him with a black eye.

Connolly came forward, he said, after he heard of several other incidents of physical abuse among his friends growing up. Neither Connolly’s father nor his brother responded to the Post’s questions at the time the alleged abuse was reported in the Washington Post.

“Growing up in the People of Praise, I knew that they held beliefs that would be extremist to the vast majority of practicing Catholics, including on gay rights and women’s rights. I looked at the number of people living in those states covered by the seventh circuit court, and then projected those numbers over a lifetime appointment. It was well into the tens of millions. That’s when I brought the story to the New York Times in 2017. As a supreme court justice now, her extreme views may affect upwards of half a billion Americans in her lifetime,” he told the Guardian.

 

[Neonmoon 38,130]

I can't really judge ACB for being in a cult when every other justice is in cult 

[Gap03 3,337]

30 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

More coming out about the sect ACB belongs to.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/06/people-of-praise-accused-child-abuse-amy-coney-barrett?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=soc_568&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1654508947
 

 

No need to worry - just 4 more decades or so with this cultist that the Senate couldn't be bothered to spend more than a couple of hours discussing before they crammed her onto the USSC.  I'm sure it will all work out.

[jimmyjazz 46,225]

If true, no biggie.

[wildcat09 29,420]

ACB's Christian group, People of Praise, sounds like a sex cult that grooms kids.

edit: Penelope beat me to the link

Edited June 6, 2022 by wildcat09

[elfenix 34,338]

51 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

ACB's Christian group, People of Praise, sounds like a sex cult that grooms kids:

 

4 posts above.

[wildcat09 29,420]

4 minutes ago, elfenix said:

4 posts above.

Surly has been so janky this afternoon I'm pretty sure that post didn't exist when I made mine. 

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,682]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

ACB's Christian group, People of Praise, sounds like a sex cult that grooms kids.

edit: Penelope beat me to the link

So, exactly what the Qanons are on a witch hunt for. But like always with the crazy right, the call is coming from inside the house

[babysdaddy 2,728]

 

 

[Gap03 3,337]

3 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

 

Fuckers reaping the extremist whirlwind?

[wildcat09 29,420]

7 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

 

 

Dude should've just waited a few more weeks. Kavanaugh is about to make carrying a gun a constitutional right.

[Gap03 3,337]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Dude should've just waited a few more weeks. Kavanaugh is about to make carrying a gun a constitutional right.

This is a damn fine point.  Concurrent exercise of the First Amendment ("I think that piece of shit should die ...") and Second Amendment (I'm just toting my AR-15s with 10 extra 30-round clips through the Maryland suburbs) CANNOT be illegal - right?!?!  Right, Justice Kavanaugh!?!?! 

And if it is, by some chance, would it be better if I incorporated first, given the only rights stronger than individuals' constitutional rights are corporations' constitutional rights? 

[Nivek 16,992]

Crisis actor.

[crash_davis 23,115]

 

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/politics/supreme-court-border-patrol-agents/index.html

Supreme Court limits excessive force claims against Border Patrol agents

By Tierney Sneed and Ariane de Vogue, CNN

Updated 11:17 AM ET, Wed June 8, 2022

(CNN)The Supreme Court said Wednesday that a Border Patrol agent in Washington state cannot be personally sued in federal court for damages after a private citizen brought claims of illegal retaliation and excessive force.

The decision continues a recent trend of the high court cutting back on the ability of individuals to sue law enforcement officers who violate their constitutional rights when there is no specific law authorizing such a claim to go forward.

The ruling expands federal officers' immunity from private lawsuits and reverses a lower court opinion that allowed the lawsuit to go forward. Lawyers for the Border Patrol agent argued that the threat of liability would interfere with his job duties.

Exclusive: Supreme Court leak investigation heats up as clerks are asked for phone records in unprecedented move

The court said 9-0 that the Border Patrol agent could not face a lawsuit under a First Amendment claim of retaliation. The court also said that the agent could not face a lawsuit under the Fourth Amendment for an alleged excessive use of force, with the court's three liberal justices dissenting.

CNN had filed a friend-of-the-court-brief arguing that the court should not further cut back the ability to bring damages lawsuits against government officials who violate the First Amendment.

The case was brought by Robert Boule, a US citizen who owned a bed and breakfast near the Canadian border in Washington. Boule had filed a lawsuit against Customs and Border Patrol Agent Erik Egbert, after a 2014 encounter at Boule's inn during which Egbert allegedly used excessive force against Boule. Boule also alleged that Egbert engaged in retaliation against Boule after Boule reported injuries from the encounter to Egbert's supervisors.

Boule sued Egbert in federal court, with a lawsuit seeking damages for a violation of his First and Fourth Amendment rights. Boule's lawyers pointed to a 1971 decision called "Bivens" that held that a private individual could sue a federal officer for damages if his fundamental rights are violated. In recent years the court has been reticent to extend the holding of Bivens to other circumstances.

Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said that lower courts had erred in finding Boule could pursue his Fourth Amendment claims under the "Bivens" test that the Supreme Court had previously laid out.

"Congress is better positioned to create remedies in the border-security context, and the Government already has provided alternative remedies that protect plaintiffs like Boule," Thomas wrote.

The Supreme Court additionally concluded Wednesday that there was no Bivens cause of action for retaliation claims brought under the First Amendment.

Thomas wrote that extending Bivens to that context "could pose an acute risk of increasing" social costs, including "the risk that fear of personal monetary liability and harassing litigation will unduly inhibit officials in the discharge of their duties."

"A plaintiff can turn practically any adverse action into grounds for a retaliation claim," Thomas wrote, adding that even a "frivolous retaliation claim" could set off an expansive discovery process in "which there is often no clear end to the relevant evidence."

"We are therefore 'convinced' that, in light of these costs, 'Congress is in a better position to decide whether or not the public interest would be served' by imposing a damages action," Thomas wrote.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing the dissent from the majority's findings on the Fourth Amendment Bivens claims, said the majority had rewritten a legal standard it had recently put forward for those claims , with an opinion that "stretches national-security concerns beyond recognition, and discerns an alternative remedial structure where none exists."

"Today's decision does not overrule Bivens. It nevertheless contravenes precedent and will strip many more individuals who suffer injuries at the hands of other federal officers, and whose circumstances are materially indistinguishable from those in Bivens, of an important remedy," Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion that said that the court should "forthrightly return the power to create new causes of action to the people's representatives in Congress."

During the 2014 episode, Egbert stopped Boule in town to ask him about guests staying at the inn. Boule said that two of his employees were en route to pick up a guest who had recently arrived from Turkey. Later that day, when the guest arrived, Egbert followed the car carrying the guest into the driveway and attempted to approach it. Boule, asked Egbert to leave which led to an altercation. According to Boule, Egbert pushed him to the ground and began asking the guest about his immigration status. Boule called 911, more agents arrived for back up and determined the guest was lawfully in the country. After seeking treatment for back injuries, Boule complained to Egbert's supervisors about his conduct at the inn and Egbert retaliated. Egbert contacted the IRS and asked it to look into Boule's tax status.

In the lawsuit against Egbert, Boule argued Egbert had retaliated against him in violation of his First Amendment rights and that he had entered his private property, refused to leave and pushed him to the ground violating his Fourth Amendment rights.

"Awarding individual damages for federal officer misconduct has long-standing roots dating back to the founding and remains appropriate, albeit more limited, today," Boule's attorney, Felicia H. Ellsworth argued.

Sarah M. Harris, a lawyer for Egbert countered that the Constitution "vests Congress alone with the power to create damage actions" and that the judiciary "isn't well suited to assess the systemic costs and benefits of a new damages action."

"Border Patrol agents are in dangerous circumstances every day trying to interdict terrorists, smugglers, illegal entry and exit of foreign nationals crossing the border," she said.

The Biden administration supported Egbert and argued that Bivens should not be extended to cover the case at hand.

[DigglerontheHoof 21,255]

So 2/3s of Americans live in a zone where cops can break into your house, beat the shit out of you and have zero consequences brought against them.

'Murica!!

Edited June 9, 2022 by DigglerontheHoof