SCOTUS

[NattyBohChamps04]

Gotta love it. We "should" do good.

Like a bad 80's movie. Greed is good. Clown show as always with this bunch.

[dislaxxic]

What’s Going On With Brett Kavanaugh?

On Monday, the Supreme Court affirmed the federal government’s supremacy over the states, a principle established explicitly in the Constitution, enshrined by centuries of precedent, and etched into history by the Civil War. The vote was 5–4. Four dissenting justices would have allowed the state of Texas to nullify laws enacted by Congress, pursuant to its express constitutional authority over immigration, that direct federal law enforcement to intercept migrants crossing the border. These justices would have allowed Texas to edge ever closer to a violent clash between state and federal forces, deploying armed guardsmen and razor wire to block the president from faithfully executing the law.

It was no surprise that three of these dissenters—Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch—sided with Texas, given their overt hostility to the Biden administration’s immigration policies, which verges on rejecting the president’s legitimate right to govern. It was, however, deeply alarming to see who joined them: Brett Kavanaugh, the justice who expends tremendous energy assuring the nation that he is reasonable, moderate, and inclined toward compromise. Kavanaugh’s vote on Monday was none of those things; it was, rather, an endorsement of a state’s rebellion against federal supremacy.

..

[dislaxxic]

A new Supreme Court case threatens to take away your right to protest

A renegade federal appeals court — one dominated by MAGA-aligned judges who routinely read the law in ways that even the current, very conservative Supreme Court finds untenable — has spent the last half-decade harassing DeRay Mckesson, a prominent civil rights activist and an organizer within the Black Lives Matter movement

As part of this crusade, two of the Fifth Circuit’s judges effectively eliminated the First Amendment right to organize a protest in a case known as Doe v. Mckesson.

Mckesson’s case has already been up to the Supreme Court once, and the justices strongly hinted in a 2020 opinion that the Fifth Circuit’s attacks on Mckesson’s First Amendment rights should end — labeling this case “fraught with implications for First Amendment rights.” But the Fifth Circuit did not take the hint, issuing a new opinion last July reaffirming its attack on First Amendment-protected political protests.

More unAmerican stuff from the loony 5th Circuit...it's what you get when republic's are "in charge".

..

[cradleandshoot]

A new Supreme Court case threatens to take away your right to protest

A renegade federal appeals court — one dominated by MAGA-aligned judges who routinely read the law in ways that even the current, very conservative Supreme Court finds untenable — has spent the last half-decade harassing DeRay Mckesson, a prominent civil rights activist and an organizer within the Black Lives Matter movement

As part of this crusade, two of the Fifth Circuit’s judges effectively eliminated the First Amendment right to organize a protest in a case known as Doe v. Mckesson.

Mckesson’s case has already been up to the Supreme Court once, and the justices strongly hinted in a 2020 opinion that the Fifth Circuit’s attacks on Mckesson’s First Amendment rights should end — labeling this case “fraught with implications for First Amendment rights.” But the Fifth Circuit did not take the hint, issuing a new opinion last July reaffirming its attack on First Amendment-protected political protests.

More unAmerican stuff from the loony 5th Circuit...it's what you get when republic's are "in charge".

..

They must be trying to outdo the 9th Circuit. They still have a ways to go. Did you mean Republicans? I'm not sure republics works in the context you are using it.

[Kismet]

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/wh ... ted-states

Turns out Justice Scalia opined that POTUS is an officer of the United States - this being one of the off-ramps current SCOTUS could use in the upcoming decision

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/wh ... ted-states

Turns out Justice Scalia opined that POTUS is an officer of the United States - this being one of the off-ramps current SCOTUS could use in the upcoming decision

What say the 3 stoogettes??

[Seacoaster(1)]

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/wh ... ted-states

Turns out Justice Scalia opined that POTUS is an officer of the United States - this being one of the off-ramps current SCOTUS could use in the upcoming decision

These historians -- who filed this Amicus Brief -- think that it is clear that POTUS is an officer of the United States, and that Section 3 is self-executing (does not require enabling legislation from Congress):

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 0Brief.pdf

Pretty interesting read.

[jhu72]

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/wh ... ted-states

Turns out Justice Scalia opined that POTUS is an officer of the United States - this being one of the off-ramps current SCOTUS could use in the upcoming decision

... you mean by running over one of their heroes ...

[Seacoaster(1)]

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/wh ... ted-states

Turns out Justice Scalia opined that POTUS is an officer of the United States - this being one of the off-ramps current SCOTUS could use in the upcoming decision

... you mean by running over one of their heroes ...

More historians weighing in...on the side of disqualification:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 0Final.pdf

Summary of the Argument:

"In the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress devised the Disqualification Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment out of concern that office-holders who
had violated their oaths to the Constitution would reassume positions of authority, destabilize state and federal governments, and suppress freedom of speech. The Republican framers of the Amendment believed that anything short of the disqualification of insurrectionists risked surrendering the government to anti-Constitutionalist rebels.2 In a speech in 1866, Benjamin Butler, soon afterward elected to Congress, declared that secessionists had left their offices “for the purpose of destroying this government” and “now desire to return to their seats for the same purpose.”3

“Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy,” Lincoln had said in his First Inaugural Address. Five years and seven hundred
thousand war deaths later, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment hoped not only to prevent a resurgence of secessionism but also to protect future generations against insurrectionism. An early draft of Section Three limiting its reach to those who had participated in “the late insurrection” was eliminated in favor of language that disqualified both past and future insurrectionists who had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. “This is to go into our Constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present,” said one senator during floor debate.

Without a disqualification clause that would endure, a Congressional committee warned, “flagrant rebellion, carried to the extreme of civil war,” would become “a pastime.” Future insurrections could be defeated by force of arms but “the battle may be still fought out in the legislative halls of the country.” Insurrectionists could take over state legislatures, state houses, Congress, the cabinet, and even the White House. Section Three was meant to prevent that possibility. Its framers intended Section Three: (1) to automatically disqualify insurrectionists; (2) to apply not only to the Civil War but also to future insurrections; and (3) to bar anyone who has betrayed an oath to uphold the Constitution from becoming President of the United States. It remains in place and in force today."

From the conclusion:

" As Missouri Republican John B. Henderson declared the day he cast his vote for the Fourteenth Amendment in the Senate, 'The language of this section is so framed as to disenfranchise from office the leaders of the past rebellion as well as the leaders of any rebellion hereafter to come.' May the curse of that hereafter never come again."

[jhu72]

Hawaii's Supreme Court just flipped the bird at Scotus big time! It seems to be setup to do some head butting with the 6 numb nuts over gun control. It will likely once again expose the stupidity of the conservative judiciary and its hypocrisy on the court.

[cradleandshoot]

So the new rule of thumb in Hawaii will be that only convicted felons will be allowed to carry illegal weapons.

[dislaxxic]

No "new rule of thumb" WHATSOEVER.

The Hawaii ruling is notable for several reasons, not the LEAST being their methodical and so-well-reasoned takedown of the whole "strict construction" BULLSHIRT championed by wingnuts like Antonin Scalia and Sam the Sham Alito...

It’s an amazing case because the Hawaii Constitution has a provision that is the same as the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It literally uses the exact same words as the Second Amendment. And Justice Eddins said: Even though the provisions are the same, we will not interpret them the same way, because we think the U.S. Supreme Court clearly got it wrong in Heller when it said the Second Amendment creates an individual right to bear arms.

Justice Eddins then pored over the immense body of scholarship and historical research that has shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that SCOTUS was catastrophically wrong in Heller. He even quoted this great study that refutes a centerpiece of Justice Antonin Scalia’s analysis in Heller, which was the idea that the phrase “bear arms” typically meant individual use of a weapon in 18th-century parlance. Scholars have analyzed thousands of documents from that era and proved that Scalia was just objectively wrong: The phrase “bear arms” was unfailingly used in a collective context, describing a militia—which makes sense, since the Second Amendment begins by saying its purpose is to protect the militia, not an individual right to own guns.

Then Eddins’ opinion goes on to analyze the real history of guns in Hawaii. And he says: “Never have Hawaii’s people felt that carrying deadly weapons during daily life is an acceptable or constitutionally protected activity. The history of the Hawaiian Islands does not include a society where armed people move about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others.”

Great to see that the whiffty notion that we have to constantly read the words of 18th century white men and apply them to 21st century jurisprudence is getting the judicial analysis it so SORELY needs.

..

[njbill]

No "new rule of thumb" WHATSOEVER.

The Hawaii ruling is notable for several reasons, not the LEAST being their methodical and so-well-reasoned takedown of the whole "strict construction" BULLSHIRT championed by wingnuts like Antonin Scalia and Sam the Sham Alito...

It’s an amazing case because the Hawaii Constitution has a provision that is the same as the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It literally uses the exact same words as the Second Amendment. And Justice Eddins said: Even though the provisions are the same, we will not interpret them the same way, because we think the U.S. Supreme Court clearly got it wrong in Heller when it said the Second Amendment creates an individual right to bear arms.

Justice Eddins then pored over the immense body of scholarship and historical research that has shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that SCOTUS was catastrophically wrong in Heller. He even quoted this great study that refutes a centerpiece of Justice Antonin Scalia’s analysis in Heller, which was the idea that the phrase “bear arms” typically meant individual use of a weapon in 18th-century parlance. Scholars have analyzed thousands of documents from that era and proved that Scalia was just objectively wrong: The phrase “bear arms” was unfailingly used in a collective context, describing a militia—which makes sense, since the Second Amendment begins by saying its purpose is to protect the militia, not an individual right to own guns.

Then Eddins’ opinion goes on to analyze the real history of guns in Hawaii. And he says: “Never have Hawaii’s people felt that carrying deadly weapons during daily life is an acceptable or constitutionally protected activity. The history of the Hawaiian Islands does not include a society where armed people move about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others.”

Great to see that the whiffty notion that we have to constantly read the words of 18th century white men and apply them to 21st century jurisprudence is getting the judicial analysis it so SORELY needs.

..

+1 million.

Very refreshing to see another jurist point out how wrong the Supreme Court was in Heller. Mark my words. That decision will be reversed at some point down the line. Might take 50 years (in which case I won’t be around to see it) like Roe, but it will happen. The decision is just so wrong, wrong, wrong.

[cradleandshoot]

No "new rule of thumb" WHATSOEVER.

The Hawaii ruling is notable for several reasons, not the LEAST being their methodical and so-well-reasoned takedown of the whole "strict construction" BULLSHIRT championed by wingnuts like Antonin Scalia and Sam the Sham Alito...

It’s an amazing case because the Hawaii Constitution has a provision that is the same as the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It literally uses the exact same words as the Second Amendment. And Justice Eddins said: Even though the provisions are the same, we will not interpret them the same way, because we think the U.S. Supreme Court clearly got it wrong in Heller when it said the Second Amendment creates an individual right to bear arms.

Justice Eddins then pored over the immense body of scholarship and historical research that has shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that SCOTUS was catastrophically wrong in Heller. He even quoted this great study that refutes a centerpiece of Justice Antonin Scalia’s analysis in Heller, which was the idea that the phrase “bear arms” typically meant individual use of a weapon in 18th-century parlance. Scholars have analyzed thousands of documents from that era and proved that Scalia was just objectively wrong: The phrase “bear arms” was unfailingly used in a collective context, describing a militia—which makes sense, since the Second Amendment begins by saying its purpose is to protect the militia, not an individual right to own guns.

Then Eddins’ opinion goes on to analyze the real history of guns in Hawaii. And he says: “Never have Hawaii’s people felt that carrying deadly weapons during daily life is an acceptable or constitutionally protected activity. The history of the Hawaiian Islands does not include a society where armed people move about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others.”

Great to see that the whiffty notion that we have to constantly read the words of 18th century white men and apply them to 21st century jurisprudence is getting the judicial analysis it so SORELY needs.

..

If you hand over jurisprudence to 21st century FLP radical liberals the country will be really F***ED. Those 18th century white men were willing to sacrifice everything including their own lives and everything they owned to establish this country. What skin do YOU have in the game Dis? No need to reply, you have no skin in the game. 21st century FLP radical liberals are the Emerald Ash Borers of this century and America is the Ash tree they wish to devour.

[a fan]

No "new rule of thumb" WHATSOEVER.

The Hawaii ruling is notable for several reasons, not the LEAST being their methodical and so-well-reasoned takedown of the whole "strict construction" BULLSHIRT championed by wingnuts like Antonin Scalia and Sam the Sham Alito...

It’s an amazing case because the Hawaii Constitution has a provision that is the same as the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It literally uses the exact same words as the Second Amendment. And Justice Eddins said: Even though the provisions are the same, we will not interpret them the same way, because we think the U.S. Supreme Court clearly got it wrong in Heller when it said the Second Amendment creates an individual right to bear arms.

Justice Eddins then pored over the immense body of scholarship and historical research that has shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that SCOTUS was catastrophically wrong in Heller. He even quoted this great study that refutes a centerpiece of Justice Antonin Scalia’s analysis in Heller, which was the idea that the phrase “bear arms” typically meant individual use of a weapon in 18th-century parlance. Scholars have analyzed thousands of documents from that era and proved that Scalia was just objectively wrong: The phrase “bear arms” was unfailingly used in a collective context, describing a militia—which makes sense, since the Second Amendment begins by saying its purpose is to protect the militia, not an individual right to own guns.

Then Eddins’ opinion goes on to analyze the real history of guns in Hawaii. And he says: “Never have Hawaii’s people felt that carrying deadly weapons during daily life is an acceptable or constitutionally protected activity. The history of the Hawaiian Islands does not include a society where armed people move about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others.”

Great to see that the whiffty notion that we have to constantly read the words of 18th century white men and apply them to 21st century jurisprudence is getting the judicial analysis it so SORELY needs.

..

If you hand over jurisprudence to 21st century FLP radical liberals the country will be really F***ED. Those 18th century white men were willing to sacrifice everything including their own lives and everything they owned to establish this country. What skin do YOU have in the game Dis? No need to reply, you have no skin in the game. 21st century FLP radical liberals are the Emerald Ash Borers of this century and America is the Ash tree they wish to devour.

Cradle, you just had the religious right overturn Roe....and you think that it's "the libs" that you need to worry about? The entire court is on the right at this moment....royally F'ing women in States like Idaho where the nutjobs are legislating against women's health care.

[cradleandshoot]

No "new rule of thumb" WHATSOEVER.

The Hawaii ruling is notable for several reasons, not the LEAST being their methodical and so-well-reasoned takedown of the whole "strict construction" BULLSHIRT championed by wingnuts like Antonin Scalia and Sam the Sham Alito...

It’s an amazing case because the Hawaii Constitution has a provision that is the same as the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It literally uses the exact same words as the Second Amendment. And Justice Eddins said: Even though the provisions are the same, we will not interpret them the same way, because we think the U.S. Supreme Court clearly got it wrong in Heller when it said the Second Amendment creates an individual right to bear arms.

Justice Eddins then pored over the immense body of scholarship and historical research that has shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that SCOTUS was catastrophically wrong in Heller. He even quoted this great study that refutes a centerpiece of Justice Antonin Scalia’s analysis in Heller, which was the idea that the phrase “bear arms” typically meant individual use of a weapon in 18th-century parlance. Scholars have analyzed thousands of documents from that era and proved that Scalia was just objectively wrong: The phrase “bear arms” was unfailingly used in a collective context, describing a militia—which makes sense, since the Second Amendment begins by saying its purpose is to protect the militia, not an individual right to own guns.

Then Eddins’ opinion goes on to analyze the real history of guns in Hawaii. And he says: “Never have Hawaii’s people felt that carrying deadly weapons during daily life is an acceptable or constitutionally protected activity. The history of the Hawaiian Islands does not include a society where armed people move about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others.”

Great to see that the whiffty notion that we have to constantly read the words of 18th century white men and apply them to 21st century jurisprudence is getting the judicial analysis it so SORELY needs.

..

If you hand over jurisprudence to 21st century FLP radical liberals the country will be really F***ED. Those 18th century white men were willing to sacrifice everything including their own lives and everything they owned to establish this country. What skin do YOU have in the game Dis? No need to reply, you have no skin in the game. 21st century FLP radical liberals are the Emerald Ash Borers of this century and America is the Ash tree they wish to devour.

Cradle, you just had the religious right overturn Roe....and you think that it's "the libs" that you need to worry about? The entire court is on the right at this moment....royally F'ing women in States like Idaho where the nutjobs are legislating against women's health care.

So your trying to compare overturning Roe v Wade to a group of people trying to overturn the US Constitution? Do you have a personal issue as well with those rich white rebels who sacrificed so much to create this albeit imperfect nation to begin with? Their jurisprudence for founding this nation was just excoriated in front of your own face and it sails right over your freaking head.

I sure wish I would have had the chance to debate you back when you were in college. My memory is pretty damn good still. I remember you posting about this as far back as our other forum.

[a fan]

So your trying to compare overturning Roe v Wade to a group of people trying to overturn the US Constitution?

You think we're gonna get a bomb-throwing-America-hatin' liberal on the SCOTUS? Who? Who are we going to get, Cradle?

They just put several righties on the Court, and they are all YOUNG, Cradle. The SCOTUS will lean right for DECADES to come, my man.

And I'm ok with that...but out of balance rulings will have some negative effects. Things like what I mentioned: women in States and their doctors choosing good, safe health care vs. jail time. Not a good outcome.

Do you have a personal issue as well with those rich white rebels who sacrificed so much to create this albeit imperfect nation to begin with? Their jurisprudence for founding this nation was just excoriated in front of your own face and it sails right over your freaking head.

I honestly don't know what you're referring to here....clarify?

I sure wish I would have had the chance to debate you back when you were in college. My memory is pretty damn good still. I remember you posting about this as far back as our other forum.

Ditto! Would have been a kick! But the post-debate beers would have been the REAL fun.

[Seacoaster(1)]

So your trying to compare overturning Roe v Wade to a group of people trying to overturn the US Constitution?

You think we're gonna get a bomb-throwing-America-hatin' liberal on the SCOTUS? Who? Who are we going to get, Cradle?

They just put several righties on the Court, and they are all YOUNG, Cradle. The SCOTUS will lean right for DECADES to come, my man.

And I'm ok with that...but out of balance rulings will have some negative effects. Things like what I mentioned: women in States and their doctors choosing good, safe health care vs. jail time. Not a good outcome.

Do you have a personal issue as well with those rich white rebels who sacrificed so much to create this albeit imperfect nation to begin with? Their jurisprudence for founding this nation was just excoriated in front of your own face and it sails right over your freaking head.

I honestly don't know what you're referring to here....clarify?

I sure wish I would have had the chance to debate you back when you were in college. My memory is pretty damn good still. I remember you posting about this as far back as our other forum.

Ditto! Would have been a kick! But the post-debate beers would have been the REAL fun.

Originalism is just a method of holding us closely to the views of white slaveholders and bad, outcome determinative “historians.” That is the current SCOTUS majority.

[dislaxxic]

If you hand over jurisprudence to 21st century FLP radical liberals the country will be really F***ED. Those 18th century white men were willing to sacrifice everything including their own lives and everything they owned to establish this country. What skin do YOU have in the game Dis? No need to reply, you have no skin in the game. 21st century FLP radical liberals are the Emerald Ash Borers of this century and America is the Ash tree they wish to devour.

No one is excoriating anyone, Crankshaft...well, maybe we're pointing out that 21st century rightwingnut jurists have taken the opportunity to "interpret" the words of our - rightfully - revered founders. There was NO WAY they could have, in the late 18th century, anticipated things like political parties and their structure and rules, AK47s and birth control and so much more.

You want to see this as some sort of assault, and insult, to the Founders?? Its a shame you want to see it that way and that you have, once again, NOT read the piece that we're discussing.

This issue...originalism...vs the idea of evolutionary jurisprudence, has been debated for decades or more. The article we're discussing goes into how Hawaiian judges have painstakingly researched the types of issues that Scalia and others rely on to establish and enshrine their originalist theories in several recent VERY consequential cases. It's worth debating, not knee-jerking your way to criticisms of persons and your forever-target, the Far Left Progressives.

Read the piece and tell us what it is you like about Originalism...?

..

[Seacoaster(1)]

If you hand over jurisprudence to 21st century FLP radical liberals the country will be really F***ED. Those 18th century white men were willing to sacrifice everything including their own lives and everything they owned to establish this country. What skin do YOU have in the game Dis? No need to reply, you have no skin in the game. 21st century FLP radical liberals are the Emerald Ash Borers of this century and America is the Ash tree they wish to devour.

No one is excoriating anyone, Crankshaft...well, maybe we're pointing out that 21st century rightwingnut jurists have taken the opportunity to "interpret" the words of our - rightfully - revered founders. There was NO WAY they could have, in the late 18th century, anticipated things like political parties and their structure and rules, AK47s and birth control and so much more.

You want to see this as some sort of assault, and insult, to the Founders?? Its a shame you want to see it that way and that you have, once again, NOT read the piece that we're discussing.

This issue...originalism...vs the idea of evolutionary jurisprudence, has been debated for decades or more. The article we're discussing goes into how Hawaiian judges have painstakingly researched the types of issues that Scalia and others rely on to establish and enshrine their originalist theories in several recent VERY consequential cases. It's worth debating, not knee-jerking your way to criticisms of persons and your forever-target, the Far Left Progressives.

Read the piece and tell us what it is you like about Originalism...?

..

The late John Paul Stevens put the lie to the "originalist" view of the Second Amendment long ago. He called this decision the worst of his long tenure on the Court, blood on their hands that he could only have imagined, but which Sam and Clarence see every day...without a care. Here is a great article -- but you have to read it to understand it:

https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/st ... of-heller/

"Near the end of his life, as the pace of mass shootings increased — in schools, churches, concert arenas, and clubs — and as it became apparent the political branches were incapable of addressing the violence, Stevens’s agitation grew, as did his certainty that Heller was wrong. “These mass shootings are peculiar to America and are peculiar to a country that has the Second Amendment,” he lamented in one of his last interviews.19 “So I think that interpreting the Second Amendment to protect the individual right to own firearms is really just absurd, and it’s also terribly important. It happens over and over and over again. I think I should have been more forceful in making that point in my Heller dissent.”20 His autobiography, published just weeks before his death, called Heller “the worst self-inflicted wound in the Court’s history.”

Stevens was effectively the post-mortem research assistant for the Hawaii Supreme Court.