I want to be a wet blanket about the “big win” in the Rahimi domestic violence gun case from the Supremos.
First, the well-worn doctrine of constitutional law, first expressed by Holmes and reinforced by Brandeis*, that “even a blind pig finds an ear of corn once in a while” is in full operation here. Most of these amateur politicians in robes knew god damned well that this case was a political loser: Rahimi, a drug dealer, fired a shot at a bystander while Rahimi was beating up his girlfriend in a parking lot. She escaped, and he called her to tell her he’d shoot her if she told anyone about the assault. She got a restraining order that suspended Rahimi’s gun license, making him a prohibited possessor. After that order went into affect, Rahimi was involved in five shootings. When the cops arrested him (on some other charge, not a gun charge), they found a shit-ton of guns in his house, so he was charged with illegal possession. Even old white men who don’t give two shits about a woman’s life have to at least acknowledge that Rahimi’s girlfriend and mother of his child was in a wee bit of danger from the arsenal this motherfucker was maintaining.
Note that I said most of the amateur politicians in robes knew this was a sure political loser: Thomas was the lone dissent. Clarence has transcended the realm of mere petty political considerations to an exalted plane of existence where all that matters is whether his rulings will satisfy the most inflamed, butthurt Fox-News-watching paw paw. (A lawyer I know says that Thomas’ last act as a justice will be to write the opinion overturning Loving v Virginia.)
Second, these fuckos just threw us all a bone. Just as with the mifepristone decision, where they ruled the “right way” on a case that was a slam-dunk and should never have made it to the court, the Rahimi decision was supposed to show everyone that there’s a kinder, gentler side to the Supreme’s brand of sharia law. They just want to soften the blow of whatever fuckery they’re going to throw down on the Trump immunity decision. Also, mark my prediction well: there will be a case with better facts where they’re going to take a bite out of gun restrictions for domestic violence convicts. ( The current law is that anyone who was convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence can’t own firearms.)
Finally, the really sad thing is that the press is aching to portray these fuckers as “kinder gentler facists”. Here’s a Politico piece on how philosopher-queen Amy Coney Barrett is going to “split” the conservatives on the court, based on her concurrence with the majority opinion where she took a couple of shots at Thomas. Baby Jesus save us from the soft bigotry of low expectations on display there.
In closing, Democrats should never press pause on their constant efforts to portray the court for what it is: a bunch of corrupt hacks out to take away our rights.
——-
* This is bullshit I just made up, similar to most recent Supreme Court decisions.
Baud
And here I thought you were going to say they did this with an eye toward Hunter Biden.
Omnes Omnibus
So, with all your expertise, what is the horrible for which you think they are softening up everyone?
Villago Delenda Est
I think Cole will back me up when I say human tears are a really shitty lube for a semiautomatic firearm.
Omnes Omnibus
@Villago Delenda Est: And yet there is many a 13B I made clean his weapon with them before returning it to the arms room. Piss me off in the field, will you….
$8 blue check mistermix
@Omnes Omnibus: “with all of your expertise” LOL. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not a lawyer, but I think what bothers lawyers is that their expertise is useless when predicting what the Supremes will do. It’s all politics at the moment…
Anyway, predictions are hard, especially about the future, but I predict that the Trump immunity decision will be crafted in a way that makes it particular to Trump’s situation, requires the maximal amount of delay in lower court proceedings to parse out which of his actions were “official acts” and gives Trump as much opportunity as possible to appeal to the Supremes. I’ll leave the details to the Federalist Society eager beaver clerks who will do the heavy lifting of cloaking Republican bullshit in legalisms
(Also, the actual constitutional lawyer who I was texting with today thinks the amateur politicians on the court will time it for debate day to give Trump a bump. I don’t know if I agree with that, but it’s a possibility.)
comrade scotts agenda of rage
Politico helping to normalize something from the extremo right (Coathanger Barrett)?
That wins this week’s Claude Rains Memorial Gambling Awareness Award with the coveted 4-Claude rating.
narya
@Omnes Omnibus: EMTALA, Chevron, and TCFG’s immunity claims. Whether being unhoused is a state or a behavior. And maybe the air pollution case and/or the J6 obstruction interpretation for good measure
ETA: should be a side bet on which will be released on the day of the debate.
Baud
You’ll never go wrong predicting this Supreme Court will do bad things.
$8 blue check mistermix
This post was way too long, but I just read Josh Marshall’s reaction to the decision and he made this point:
I think Josh has it right. I think they won’t go after restraining orders (which are of limited duration) but instead prohibited possession after a domestic violence conviction.
New Deal democrat
@$8 blue check mistermix:
Yes this.
There is no way the Supremes engaged in this much delay in order to write an opinion that says “nobody is above the law.”
The best we can hope for is a deeply fractured court that cobbles together a bare majority to say that “in this circumstance the former President was not above the law.”
Much more likely, in my opinion, is that a majority of this court will find that Presidents, as chief law enforcers, have “qualified immunity.” How broad or how narrow that immunity is will determine whether all of the Trump indictments have to be thrown out or not. If they decide that Presidents, at least retrospectively, wink wink nod nod, are entitled to the same “qualified immunity” as police officers, unless Congress specifically states elsewhere in statutes, we are well and truly eff-ed.
FastEdD
I expect the fuckery over “immunity” to go something like this. Orange Man is completely immune from prosecution for all time for everything. 6 to 3. This decision applies only to Orange Man, and cannot be applied to any other case, rather like the Bush v. Gore decision. I’m going to need industrial strength Tequila. Or what New Deal democrat said.
Suzanne
I keep hearing about all the responsible gun owners, but I also keep hearing about Americans “accidentally” bringing ammunition into Turks and Caicos, and, like…. if you’re responsible, aren’t you keeping track of that shit?!
raven
@Villago Delenda Est:
@Omnes Omnibus:
Fucking officers!
Juju
@Omnes Omnibus: Chevron or presidential immunity, or both.
Major Major Major Major
Yeah, a win is a win (or at least the lack of a loss is the lack of a loss), even if this one is a pretty clear “the constitution is not a suicide pact” decision on their part, if you assume they care about their own recent precedent.
I do expect the immunity decision will just be to maximize delays, but set it up so that the inevitable decision is the correct one (we do not have a king).
As for Barrett, I mean, it is interesting that none of Trump’s appointees are nearly as bad as Alito.
Baud
@Major Major Major Major:
Or Thomas.
caphilldcne
5th circuit just ruled in the Braidwood case. They basically state that the US prevention task force is unconstitutional. Creates the way for undoing part of the affordable care act that requires insurers to cover prevention interventions. In this case it’s HIV prevention (PrEP) but had the potential to be applied to lots of cancer interventions etc. basically the courts are tearing down the ACA piece by piece. Every one of these fuckers needs yo be impeached. And I guess since they made it so hard to impeach a judge they need to expand every circuit and the Supreme Court and dilute these fuckers. I’m utterly disgusted. And yes, a law degree is useless. It’s just what these clowns say goes.
frog
@New Deal democrat:
That will give President Biden the green light to hoover up Trump and his co-conspirators. As the top law enforcement dude, he can take action to get known and thoroughly implicated law breakers off the streets.
Anonymous At Work
Throwing some more wet blankets, Roberts’ POS decision tries to carve an exception out of Bruen, rather than limiting it, based on an effable “traditions” standard for Bruen’s strict framework of 1776-or-bust “historical evidence” canard. Thomas’s dissent and Jackson’s concurrence were honest and in agreement in one regard: Under Bruen, Rahimi should have kept his guns and the law should have been struck down. Where the two disagreed is whether Bruen is a POS decision or not.
$8 blue check mistermix
@frog:
I know this is a bit of hyperbole, but it hits at an important point. I think there are a bunch of bright, bushy-tailed Federalist Society best-and-brightest burning the midnight oil to craft an opinion that gives Trump as much of a pass as possible without empowering a filthy mudblood Democrat President..
New Deal democrat
@frog: Not if it’s only retrospective!
$8 blue check mistermix
@Anonymous At Work: Agreed. Roberts is hard at work trying to make his court look a tiny bit rational.
Since the whole point is to trap law in amber where it benefits Republicans, this is just dumb boy talk.
Omnes Omnibus
@Juju: I am genuinely unsure about a Chevron decision. No idea where they will come out. On immunity, I predict a finding of limited immunity for official acts and remand for a determination as to whether any of Trump’s acts were official.
Ryan
No screw that. They don’t have an army. They can’t appropriate monies to themselves. One of their first decisions was that they Lord above all of us. Make them earn it. In other words, what if we say no?
Omnes Omnibus
@Anonymous At Work: They are looking for a way out from Thomas’s 2d Amendment jurisprudence.
Ryan
@FastEdD: You’re forgetting that they’ll need to cite Bush vs. Gore in that decision.
narya
@Omnes Omnibus: What about EMTALA and J6 obstruction and homelessness? I am MORE than willing to be wrong; curious about your thoughts. (Note that I do best mentally if I try to prepare for the worst, and I’m basing my thoughts on the Strict Scrutiny analyses that followed the arguments in the cases.)
Anonymous At Work
@Major Major Major Major: Alito, like Scalia, is bitter and angry that he has to explain himself and that he doesn’t run everything through the sheer power of his brilliance. Bitter, brittle, academic pedigrees. TFG wanted hacks that would support him politically. So, TFG got politicians or, for ACB, someone not blinded by their own arrogance to assume that others would worship their infinite wisdom.
Problem is that such people are loyal to power only, and now their power is “History Proclaims Only Nine on the Supreme Court” (Ron Howard: This is a lie).
Ryan
@narya: Expect all the worst decisions.
Fake Irishman
@Omnes Omnibus:
Agreed. I think this take is needlessly cynical. I’m not sure what the alternative here is: the fifth circuit has made numerous bonkers rulings, it’s not a performative act to clean it up, it’s just doing your freaking job, no more, no less. We shouldn’t be reading into these wins too much: we’re fighting in the the realms of very reactionary takes on the law, so wins help establish boundaries (yes, you can fund the consumer protection board, yes you need something remotely resembling standing to challenge the FDA ruling on a drug) but don’t really move the ball forward for the good guys. On the other hand, these are rulings that go the right way are good things and we shouldn’t look for dark clouds for the heck of it.
No, I am not a lawyer. So I’m not sure if whether that makes me more or less qualified to comment on these topics.
BlueGuitarist
@comrade scotts agenda of rage:
“Claude Rains Memorial Gambling Awareness Award”
Nominated!
Anonymous At Work
@Omnes Omnibus: Nope. Looking for a way to avoid having more Justices join them.
Setting Rahimi free and giving him back his guns is just asking for a few murders by him, and a few hundred like him in short order.
This was about “Bruen was wrongly decided, badly written, and several members of that majority did not think through all the consequences.”
Omnes Omnibus
@narya: EMTALA and homelessness are probably going to be shitty. I am on the fence over J6. It should be obvious m, but the six did not seem to take the danger of J6 all that seriously at the oral argument. My usual caveat about reading too deeply into what happens at an oral argument applies.
Rusty
@$8 blue check mistermix: The knife was in the rest of that section of the opinion. The history and tradition standard was clearly stated to not apply to improvements in weapons, otherwise the second amendment would only apply to “muskets and sabers”. Robert’s used the design to solidify that an AR-15 is a sacred object that no one dare regulate. That was turd in the punch bowl of the decision.
David 🌈 ☘The Establishment☘🌈 Koch
@Baud: what sentence does a first time, non violent offender, who will likely express remorse and contrition before the judge, usually receive in screening case?
scav
@$8 blue check mistermix: Poor Fred! Losing his job prospects! Can’t have that, just as we couldn’t possibly impinge on the possible career prospects of that convicted student rapist. Unhinged wimminz clearly getting above themselves if they put their well-being above the (potential) lives of their embryos or the livelihoods of any male they interact with. Cops, security guards, gun dealers, they’re just all rated lifetime double-O status as the founders and GoD intended.
Omnes Omnibus
@Anonymous At Work: I go along with you on them realizing Bruen was a fuck up. I may have stated it too broadly.
BlueGuitarist
This is the only time there’s been a
majority of scotus
Nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote and
confirmed by senators who didn’t represent a majority of the population
We need fairer and larger
Senate (DC statehood, at least)
Scotus (fight for 15)
House of Representatives (if we can significantly reduce gerrymandering)
(popular vote, anything requiring constitutional amendment, is a way heavier lift)
First: elect more Democrats.
NC thermometer is right here; almost at the goal.
HumboldtBlue
The Polish national team is the first team eliminated from the Euros after the Netherlands and France ended up tied, and the Poles lost to Austria.
That means Poland was eliminated in Germany by the Austrian, while France and Netherlands stood aside and did nothing. We’ve seen this scenario before.
Miki
@Omnes Omnibus: Yup. That’s what I think, too. The fact that this could lead to political fuckery if TCFG is elected is a consequence, not a cause/motive.
TBone
The “history and tradition standard” does not pass the history and tradition standard, because it is shit they just made up. Throw this entire court in the garbage can, set it on fire, and start over completely. With enforceable oversight rules and term limits. Yes, I’m pissy today.
comrade scotts agenda of rage
@BlueGuitarist:
Stolen from a long-gone blog. I used to have tiny photos of him as Capt Renault to award the 1-4 Claude Rating (like stars) on sites that allowed for photos.
TBone
Apropos of nothing
Strange to think an embryo can lose its rights…
if it develops into a female.
Melancholy Jaques
@Omnes Omnibus:
I concur because I think it is the most likely outcome to get five votes. Total guess, the three liberals, plus Roberts and Gorsuch. Roberts writes the opinion.
hueyplong
The 24/7/365 bad faith of the Supreme Court is so bad it arguably renders irrelevant the transparent obstruction by Cannon. If she wasn’t spreading the floor to run out the clock, they would.
We’re where we always were. Win the election. Or else. Rampant criminality is only an issue to the extent awareness of it marginally helps to win the election.
My contempt for the Supreme Court is too overwhelming to articulate. And FWIW, I am a lawyer (now retired and glad of it).
hueyplong
@Melancholy Jaques: Hasn’t the court already found they weren’t official acts?
bbleh
I don’t care, I’ll take a W. I want Gloomis I’ll read LGM.
And I understand Thomas was whining publicly about people being all MEAN to him. This from a guy who’s playing politics as overtly as any Senator.
I had always thought of hardcore “conservatives” as clench-jawed assholes, but the era of Trump has made it clear what a bunch of whining snowflakes they are.
smith
@Melancholy Jaques: Am I remembering wrong, but didn’t the lower courts already consider whether the charged acts were official acts, and decided they weren’t?
Captain C
@frog:
FTFY
TBone
@hueyplong: I concur.
Geminid
@HumboldtBlue: I hear Turkiye has a good 19 year-old playing. He just eclipsed Reynoldo’s record for youngest player to score in the European championship.
M31
cnn article: “Justice Samuel Alito absent from Supreme Court session for second day in a row”
probably didn’t choke on his own bile
but my little black wizened heart went pitter patter at the thought
smith
@M31: Didn’t Thomas miss a couple days a few weeks back? Maybe the stress is getting to be too much, and they should consider retiring
Yutsano
@HumboldtBlue: Ukraine won against Slovakia. So that’s good at least.
MomSense
I think I’ve become somewhat numb to SCOTUS and how anti-Democratic and just generally horrific it has become.
Part of the problem for me is that this court, these 6 asshole justices were completely predictable.
M31
@smith: the pair of them with their hideous wives should get in the RV, hang the upside down flag and yeet themselves into the sun
the world will rejoice
zhena gogolia
@MomSense: Yeah, I can’t give it too much of my energy. 2016 was the time.
Melancholy Jaques
@smith:
The whole case is before the supreme court. They are not bound by the lower court’s rulings. They can do whatever they want with it.
sab
@Major Major Major Major: And we could have had Harriet Meier, who probably would have been another Souter.
HumboldtBlue
@Geminid:
Spain has a 16-year-old on the field, Lamine Yamal.
Kevin the hen
Holy s hit, **chef’s kiss
hueyplong
@Melancholy Jaques: Sure, but they shouldn’t be able to pretend that the findings weren’t made. Under your theory I guess they’d have to prescribe a different standard for making them or some such.
That would be the bad faith we keep seeing.
HumboldtBlue
@Yutsano:
I can’t find the clip of their goalscorer, Roman Yaremchuk, crying post-match. It was very moving.
Another Scott
Meanwhile, … MarylandMatters.org:
“Show us your budget and you show us your values.” – Nancy Pelosi.
If we want progress, we have to work for it because the monsters aren’t going to do it…
Cheers,
Scott.
rivers
I always enjoyed watching Donald Sutherland – what a fantastic voice! Ordinary People and Eye of the Needle are my favorites, but I also loved Citizen X, an HBO movie from the 90’s, in which Stephen Rea who is a Russian detective investigating a serial murderer in the Soviet Union (which believed serial murderers were an invention of the decadent west) is helped and protected by a Russian colonel – played by Sutherland – who finds his conscience. All the performances were great.
BellyCat
@Another Scott: Agree with Bernie, but there is more.
In PA, I was hired by a public school to teach, with one condition: I had to get a teaching certificate at my own cost per the TEACHER’S UNION. My pay would be the same as a first year education bachelor graduate. Around $40k.
Mind you, I have a Masters degree (from a much maligned “small liberal arts college in Cambridge, MA”) and have taught (both part and full time) university level students for seventeen years previous to this.
Teaching Certificate? No sweat, I thought. A few workshops, perhaps? No. Four years of coursework was required (evenings, weekends, and summers) at a cost of around $30K, to be paid by me.
I asked if Steve Jobs or Bill Gates wanted to teach, would they also need a Teaching Certificate? “Yes” was the answer.
The school said that once hired, they would pay for a Masters degree. I asked, with tongue in cheek, whether they would pay for the Masters I already had if I paid for the Teaching Certificate. Curiously, (haha) they retracted the offer.
Teacher’s unions are there to protect themselves, not to help students.
Melancholy Jaques
@hueyplong:
They can do whatever they want. They have disregarded findings they didn’t like in the past. More likely, if they do a remand, they will ask the trial court to re-examine the findings in light of the rule or rules they pronounce.
hueyplong
@Melancholy Jaques: Which is kind of what I said.
Soprano2
@TBone: Like the “major questions doctrine” that they also made up to do want they wanted to do.
Betty Cracker
@Fake Irishman:
With this court? Unpossible!
Ksmiami
@Ryan: exactly. The Founders never wanted a few ppl in robes to rule.
wjca
I don’t recall if Thomas lives in Virginia. But if he does, the opinion will include an inventive excuse for excluding current or former Supreme Court justices. (Or maybe some other group that he happens, purely by coincidence mind, to belong to.) No way he let’s an opinion inconvenience himself.
Another Scott
@wjca:
Patch.com:
Gov. Fuzzy Vest, and many of his ilk, don’t understand things like the Constitution and rights of the people and such. Funny, that.
Grr…,
Scott.