SCOTUS

[cradleandshoot]

SCOTUS Keeps Marching Right

OK, i get it. Thomas found a technicality. The gun manufacturers had found a way to automatically "pull the trigger" by pressing the stock and letting the rest of the weapon slide back and forth, thereby spraying hundreds of bullets out at a time. Is the human even touching the trigger during this volley? Thus, instead of of attempting to divine the INTENT of the wording of the definition of "machinegun"...like the good little "originalists do in nearly every case nowadays...which might reasonably be to imagine that the writers of that rule MEANT to forbid the rapid discharge of HUNDREDS of bullets at a time, Thomas says they have to write a better, more clear law. Good luck with that, as Seacoaster says.

It seems that our legislators need to be able to divine future technological advances when they write laws, yet still avoid the inevitable challenge to "overbroad" language that would surely come from conservative justices in assessing constitutionality, right?

..

Technicalities are used all of the time in our legal system. Sometimes technicalities wind up getting convicted murderers released from prison. IMO the technicality involving bump stocks is they are not an integral part of the manufacture of the weapon. The same is true of a laser scope. The problem with bump stocks is they are cheap to make and plentiful to find anywhere on the open market. Good luck trying to find a solution. From what I understand a bump stock could be easily made from a 3D printer.

[dislaxxic]

Barrett May Be Tiring of Thomas' Bogus Originalism

...this time, Barrett’s critique cuts much deeper: Thomas, she wrote, “never explains why hunting for historical forebears on a restriction-by-restriction basis is the right way to analyze the constitutional question.” The majority “presents tradition itself as the constitutional argument,” as though it is “dispositive of the First Amendment issue,” without any “theoretical justification.” In a passage that must have made the liberal justices proud, Barrett continued: “Relying exclusively on history and tradition may seem like a way of avoiding judge-made tests. But a rule rendering tradition dispositive is itself a judge-made test. And I do not see a good reason to resolve this case using that approach rather than by adopting a generally applicable principle.” Plucking out historical anecdotes, ad libbing some connective tissue, then presenting the result as a constitutional principle “misses the forest for the trees.” When applying “broadly worded” constitutional text, “courts must inevitably articulate principles to resolve individual cases.” This approach brings sorely needed “clarity to the law.”

Barrett sketched out a better path: assessing the “names clause” within a framework “grounded in both trademark law and First Amendment precedent.” When the government “opens its property to speech,” she wrote, restrictions are permissible so long as they aren’t cover for the “official suppression of ideas.” Thus, courts should uphold trademark laws if they “are reasonable in light of the trademark system’s purpose.”

Why did Barrett spill so much ink repudiating Thomas’ opinion when the two justices landed in the same place? Her opinion reads like a rebuttal of Bruen, Thomas’ 2022 decision establishing a novel right to carry guns in public—which Barrett joined in full. Bruen marked a sea change because it upended the way courts looked at firearm restrictions. Previously, the courts of appeals applied heightened scrutiny to gun laws, asking whether the regulation was carefully drawn to further public safety. SCOTUS applies this test in countless other contexts, including the First Amendment and equal protection. It requires judges to balance the interests on both sides, a well-worn tool of judicial review. Yet Thomas spurned this “means-ends scrutiny,” demanding that courts rely exclusively on the nation’s “history and tradition”: A gun restriction, he wrote, is only constitutional if it has a sufficient number of “historical analogues” from the distant past.

..

[njbill]

Welp. Supremes are done for the day. Four opinions, but no biggies.

[njbill]

Only two opinions issued today. 10 more to go and, based on their current schedule, only two more opinion days, tomorrow and Friday. Might need to go into next week which rarely happens.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Only two opinions issued today. 10 more to go and, based on their current schedule, only two more opinion days, tomorrow and Friday. Might need to go into next week which rarely happens.

This Murthy v. Missouri case is pretty interesting, if only for the coalition that is in the majority: Roberts, Barrett, Kavanaugh, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson, reversing the Fifth Circuit, where lunatics go to judge. Sam and Clarence and Neil dissenting.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 1_3dq3.pdf

The case was another attack in the courts on government interactions with private social media platforms patrolling and trying to curtail misinformation, this time about coronavirus-related "information," asserting that government officials had effectively conspired with the platforms to suppress protected speech. The majority found that the plaintiffs -- two states and a handful of social media users -- did not have standing to sue the government:

"The plaintiffs claim standing based on the “direct censorship” of their own speech as well as their “right to listen” to others who faced social-media censorship. Notably, both theories depend on the platform’s actions—yet the plaintiffs do not seek to enjoin the platforms from restricting any posts or accounts. They seek to enjoin Government agencies and officials from pressuring or encouraging the platforms to suppress protected speech in the future."

The majority holds this to be "one-step removed" and "anticipatory," lacking the causal link between the government's effort to encourage platforms to clean up the misinformation and the injury to the plaintiffs.

The Three Amigos call this "one of the most important free speech cases to reach this court in years." And would therefore find a way around basic standing doctrine to allow the claims of platform suppression to enjoin third parties in the government.

It's all pretty interesting stuff.

[njbill]

I have this lurking feeling that there is some vote trading going on that will involve the biggies still to come.

Was Sam on the bench today? He was MIA last week.

I’m sure Clarence has the RV gassed up and ready to go, so maybe they will finish on Friday.

[SCLaxAttack]

I have this lurking feeling that there is some vote trading going on that will involve the biggies still to come.

Was Sam on the bench today? He was MIA last week.

I’m sure Clarence has the RV gassed up and ready to go, so maybe they will finish on Friday.

Captain Obvious here. I'm most interested in whether SCOTUS goes full bore political and announces a Trump immunity decision before Thursday night's debate.

[CU88a]

I have this lurking feeling that there is some vote trading going on that will involve the biggies still to come.

Was Sam on the bench today? He was MIA last week.

I’m sure Clarence has the RV gassed up and ready to go, so maybe they will finish on Friday.

Do you really think that they have not long decided on these decisions?

I have nothing to base my opinion on; but just always assumed that they made their decision months ago and are just now working with staff to write their decision justification statements.

[njbill]

I would be quite surprised if they announced that decision tomorrow.

I fully expect it will be announced on the last day this term that they release decisions, whether that be Friday or next week. Among other things, that will help Trump with his goal of delaying the case as long as possible.

[njbill]

I have this lurking feeling that there is some vote trading going on that will involve the biggies still to come.

Was Sam on the bench today? He was MIA last week.

I’m sure Clarence has the RV gassed up and ready to go, so maybe they will finish on Friday.

Do you really think that they have not long decided on these decisions?

I have nothing to base my opinion on; but just always assumed that they made their decision months ago and are just now working with staff to write their decision justification statements.

Oh, I agree. 100% that the cases have already been decided, that is, the votes are set in stone. At this point, they are simply tweaking their opinions and allowing time for the opinions to be printed and for the reporter to write the syllabus.

Any vote trading would have occurred sometime after oral argument, but well before this week.

[njbill]

Inadvertently posted S.Ct. opinion says:

The Supreme Court would allow emergency abortion care in Idaho despite the state’s restrictions on the procedure, according to Bloomberg Law, which viewed a copy of a not-yet-released opinion that was briefly posted on the court’s website Wednesday.

The decision, which has not been announced by the court, would mean that hospitals could perform emergency abortions to stabilize patients without being subject to prosecution under Idaho’s abortion ban. It would be at least a temporary victory for the Biden administration, which has struggled to protect abortion access since the high court overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago.

According to the Bloomberg report, the court’s ruling would dismiss the case as “improvidently granted,” meaning that after oral argument, the justices found problems with resolving the issue.

It is extremely rare — perhaps unprecedented — for a Supreme Court ruling to be posted on the court’s website before the ruling is issued, and it is possible that the document that was posted could differ from the opinion when it is announced.

“The Court’s Publications Unit inadvertently and briefly uploaded a document to the Court’s website,” spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said in a statement. “The Court’s opinion in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States will be issued in due course.”

The version of the opinion inadvertently posted Wednesday may not be the final decision.

The White House declined to comment on the ruling until it is issued.

The case centers on the nearly four-decade-old Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, known as EMTALA, which requires hospitals that receive federal funds to stabilize or transfer patients needing emergency care.

The Biden administration sued Idaho in 2022, saying the state’s strict abortion ban conflicts with the law. The administration said EMTALA requires emergency treatment for pregnant women not guaranteed by Idaho’s statute — including abortion — if needed to address threatening health conditions short of death such as organ failure or loss of fertility.

The case is one of two before the high court this term that will shape abortion access nationwide two years after the justices overturned Roe, which had guaranteed a constitutional right to abortion. The justices in early June unanimously rejected a challenge to the widely used abortion medication mifepristone, saying the antiabortion doctors who brought the lawsuit did not have standing to do so.

The Biden administration first turned to EMTALA in late 2021 as a way to try to ensure access to abortion in limited situations. That effort ramped up after the Supreme Court struck down Roe the following summer.

Dan Diamond and Aaron Schaffer contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... tion=alert

[SCLaxAttack]

Name your price. Did I miss comments in Fanlax on this decision?

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/st ... uption-law

[njbill]

Surprised Clarence didn’t write the opinion.

[PizzaSnake]

Name your price. Did I miss comments in Fanlax on this decision?

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/st ... uption-law

WTAF?!?!

[MDlaxfan76]

Surprised Clarence didn’t write the opinion.

Exactly. Wild, really.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Name your price. Did I miss comments in Fanlax on this decision?

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/st ... uption-law

WTAF?!?!

[njbill]

Four today, including the Idaho case leaked yesterday. We still wait for the Trump decision.

Six left. That would be a pretty big day, tomorrow, but not unheard of. Or, we could be going into next week.

[njbill]

From the well-respected Supreme Court blog:

“The court's marshal has announced that they will be back again tomorrow (which we knew), but the Chief did not announce that tomorrow would be the last day, so apparently it is not the last day of the term.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/

CNN is also reporting that tomorrow will not be the last day.

[runrussellrun]

Surprised Clarence didn’t write the opinion.

stay focused, on ONLY him.

POTUSA, literally, Obama, is estimated to be worth almost $100 million.

Wonder, if POTUSA's, ever do any "favors"

stay principled.

[ggait]

Obama and Michelle have been making BANK on book deals after leaving the White House. Lots of people like them and therefore like buying their best selling books. All commerical terms. All fully transparent.

Clarence, on the other hand, has surreptitously taken hand outs while in office and has done back flips to avoid disclosing his gifts/bribes/gratuities he has received while in office.

Some rich friend gave a sitting Justice a $275k luxury RV with zero disclosure. YCBS!!!

Apples and watermelons dude.

So just shove your uniformed gaslight garbage. And please STFU.

Thanks.