If you want to follow along on SCOTUSblog.
Here we go!
In Texas v. New Mexico, the court upholds the U.S.’s objections to a consent decree that would resolve the dispute over each state’s allocation of the waters of the Rio Grande.
RATING: ?
The court rules 6-3 in Department of State v. Munoz that a citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country.
RATING: Looks bad to me. Attorneys?
In Erlinger v. United States, the court rules that under the Armed Career Criminal Act, which imposes mandatory prison terms, a judge should use a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to decide whether the offenses were committed on separate occasions or instead a jury must make those decisions unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt.
RATING: ?
In Smith v. Arizona, the court rules for the state that the confrontation clause does not bar an expert to present an absent analyst’s true statements in support the expert’s opinion.
RATING: ?
The Supreme Court rejects the challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law that bans the possession of a gun by someone who has been the subject of a domestic violent restraining order in United States v. Rahimi.
RATING: Seems good to me. Attorneys?
Baud
Rahimi
J. Arthur Crank
That Munoz ruling seems baffling to me. How can a person not have an interest in the ability of their spouse to freely travel?
WaterGirl
@J. Arthur Crank: That’s not just baffling, that’s fucked up!
Baud
Looks like the court put some mild brakes on the Second Amendment.
ETA: Thomas alone dissents. Freak.
Omnes Omnibus
I sure am glad I posted about the cases as as they came out in the last thread. Feh.
J. Arthur Crank
Also too, I think kicking certain Supreme Court justices in the balls should routinely be put on President Biden’s official calendar. Once these activities are official, perhaps CSPAN can cover them so that we can all watch.
Frankensteinbeck
@J. Arthur Crank:
I would want to hear from a lawyer what a ‘fundamental liberty’ interest is, since legal terms can be weird. Still, 6-3 is also a bad sign.
WaterGirl
@Omnes Omnibus: I’m sorry, I had the post scheduled, but i am in a phone meeting that ran 30 minutes over, and I didn’t catch in real time that it hadn’t posted on time. I posted it as soon as I saw that.
Baud
@J. Arthur Crank:
Basically, an immigration exception.
Baud
Maybe that dude that brought a gun to Kavanaugh’s home did the country a solid. Court had been going full steam ahead on the Second Amendment.
Scout211
Freak? Sure. Bought and paid for? Definitely.
Won’t someone think of the “many more” gun owners and their rights who will be harmed by this ruling?!
ETA: Also, too, history rules!
CaseyL
@Baud:
Motherfucker, there’s that “Rights don’t exist unless they were recognized as rights in the 18th Century” bullshit again.
Have none of the Six Asswipes ever heard of the 9th Amendment?
Baud
The gun case has a lot of justices writing about how to use history.
raven
@Omnes Omnibus: dude
Scout211
I read an article this week highlighting Amy Coney Barrett’s “brave” split with Thomas on history. The article implied that the conservative 6 are not ruling in sync with each other anymore. Meh. Too soon to tell.
Baud
@Scout211: There’s definitely something going on there. I wouldn’t call any of it brave, and it’s still pretty academic, but I think the 4 or 5 of the 6 are feeling some heat from the Court’s loss of credibility. (Thomas seems immune and Alito mostly so).
Skippy-san
@CaseyL: They have heard about it. They just don’t care what it says. They will do whatever their corporate sponsors tell them to.
Especially the shitbag Thomas who is unfit to be on the bench. And as for Alito, he belongs in the dock in an impeachment trial.
Leto
@Scout211: the fact they’ll ignore history to suit their predetermined narrative, just helps point out that they’re asswipes. Also I’m trying to imagine how good this country could be if we weren’t shackled to the ghosts of 18th century white dudes.
Skippy-san
@Leto: Or if we didn’t believe in American exceptionalism and adopted solutions found in other countries.
CaseyL
@Skippy-san:
Do any of the attorneys arguing cases before them ever mention the 9th?
Eunicecycle
@Baud: Thomas and Alito are short timers and also the most “ethically challenged”. The younger members of the Court have an interest in the credibility of the Court. I would have liked to have seen more independence out of ACB earlier but if she can manage it now I will take it.
jimmiraybob
Point of originalism!
Gun ownership should be restricted to what the founders and the common Joe would have been thinking in 1791 when the 2nd was adopted: 1) well-maintained, muzzle-loading, non-rifled, black-powder long-gun and pistol, two powder horns, two sacks of appropriately sized lead balls and patches, a hatchet and a knife.
History! Tradition!
Eunicecycle
@jimmiraybob: I just said this to my husband! They obviously use the history argument only when it works for them.
smith
@jimmiraybob: And only members of an officially-constituted militia need apply.
JPL
@Baud: So can a domestic violence abuser, buy a bump stock/
Omnes Omnibus
@CaseyL: Courts generally treat the Ninth as a rule of construction rather than as source of substantive rights.
p.a.
@Baud: Academic, and incremental. Incremental in the sense of a century of earth-time compared to earth’s age. But a start. Maybe they’re not getting their fave tables or private rooms at the best restaurants any more.
“Honey, do you sense something different about the help?”
WereBear
@Baud: A workman is worthy of his hire, no?
beckya57
Waiting for the death of Chevron and whatever insanity they dream up re TFG’s immunity claims. Did y’all see Cannon’s latest nonsense: scheduling a hearing on whether Smith was properly appointed?? Also apparently 2 higher-up judges in the FL system tried to talk her out of taking the MAL case, but couldn’t stop her. So much of the federal judiciary has been completely corrupted.
p.a.
I demand my right to unfettered use of muzzleloaders!
smith
@JPL: I guess they can get the bump stock but not the gun.
WereBear
@J. Arthur Crank: Another fantastic fundraising idea.
Since we are liberals, we don’t hang in effigy.
But we aren’t above an effigy in a dunk tank, getting its hair ruined.
Sure Lurkalot
@Scout211:
“You keep using
that wordthose words. I don’t thinkit meansthey mean what you thinkit meansthey mean.” Slightly modified Inigo Montoya to the “guns of every kind everywhere all the time” crowd.WereBear
It occurred to me that MAGA are — mostly — motivated by “fear of hell” created by Right Wing media.
While we are motivated by the descent into hell their control would create.
To be clear, I grew up where it was routine for supposedly responsible adults to attribute all kinds of things to demons, Satan’s influence, and the like. Which was worse than useless.
RandomMonster
The bump stock muzzleloader is going to be crazy.
Baud
@WereBear: As long as we’re motivated, I don’t care why.
Anonymous At Work
Link to Rahimi decision? Until I read WHY the Court upheld the law, I cannot tell if the decision is Good or Meh.
Good = “Bruen is a POS that doesn’t work and we’re moving away from it”
Meh = “Giving women-murderers more ability to murder women could swing the election and help more Democrats get on the Court
EDIT: Found it. Meh~to~good. “We’re relaxing Bruen a bit but only when we think it’d be bad optics to strike down a law. We’ll decide each using the Federalist Society-patented ‘historicalisticesqueness approach of originalnessism’ that no one can predict in advance.”
WereBear
@RandomMonster: Forget that. Bring back the Napoleonic Infantry Square.
WereBear
@Baud: Look at how open we are on the pants question.
Baud
@Anonymous At Work:
Here’s a link, but give them more credit than that. They know how to cover their tracks.
22-915_8o6b.pdf (supremecourt.gov)
WereBear
On a personal note, Mr WayofCats is especially mad at Roberts, whose court it is.
“He’s not doing his job!”
The cats know, at this point.
jimmiraybob
@Eunicecycle: “Have none of the Six Asswipes ever heard of the 9th Amendment?”
There are nine amendments? Just kidding. The whole enumerated rights are the only rights argument is shit. Just like the originalism – the Constitution is not a living document – argument.
Amendment 9: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Article 5: Amending the Constitution
Not even the original authors and ratifiers were originalists and believed in change
M31
Clarence Thomas’s dissent: “what if the bitch had it coming?”
Anonymous At Work
@Baud: Edited my comment. Still trying to preserve the Federal Society-patented ‘historicalisticesqueness approach of originalnessism’ and retain enough vagueness to do whatever they want without overturning their own precedents that fail.
JPL
Bannon is appealing to the Supremes to stay out of jail..
comrade scotts agenda of rage
@WereBear:
I’d be fine with a 3lb galloper:
https://www.rockislandauction.com/riac-blog/technology-of-the-revolutionary-war
catclub
Those ‘militias’ were often slave patrols.
officially-constituted,well regulatedAnonymous At Work
@catclub: Senator Murphy of Connecticut has a bill to require militias be well-regulated at the state level. I think it adds restrictions to gun sales unless one can show such membership and eases pathways to suing gun manufacturers, sellers, and related parties if not.
Good way to make people vote with feet, rather than talk with mouths.
catclub
That was before she took the case. If they are NOW telling her not to take it, that would be notable.
Jackie
@JPL: Just for once I’d like the SC to refuse to take it. Barring that, a 9-0 decision to deny will be acceptable.
catclub
@Anonymous At Work: Thanks!
Omnes Omnibus
@Jackie: They won’t take it.
smith
@catclub: Yeah, I’m aware of the “well-regulated” part, but my own originalist interpretation is that they were thinking of government-formed militias, not some ad hoc crackpot group of sovereign citizens out in Idaho.
kindness
No ruling on Trump’s immunity claim. That means 1) Trump lost that case and 2) a majority of the justices want to help Trump by kicking the can down the road to the beginning of July to issue the ruling.
The billionaires who have bought this court are killing us.
Steve in the ATL
@Omnes Omnibus: OmnesBlog > SCOTUSblog!
Anonymous At Work
Smith v. Arizona caught my eye. My reading is that the Court, and Gorsuch especially, is allowing in the type of bootstrapping that proves problematic. Having an expert testify about what another expert thought does attenuate the conclusions drawn. However, in practical terms, this attenuation proves problematic except to dedicated legal analysts who write about how many legal angels can dance on legal pinheads.
Now, I wonder if an expert can testify about what another expert wrote about what a third expert originally did. Under Smith v. Arizona, that appears to be allowable. It’s a good way to shelter the jury from problems with experts. Like ones that test drugs AND use drugs, ones that faked ‘some’ tests to make money and earn promotions, ones that are such toxic POSs that prosecutors don’t want them to testify, etc. etc. etc.
smith
@kindness: My hope is that it’s 7-2 against immunity, and the delay is just Alito and Thomas dragging their heels in writing their dissents.
Anonymous At Work
@kindness: Nah, TFG lost and the minority are “revising” their dissents endlessly. Plus Roberts is trying to shore up the non-MAGAts behind an opinion that creates elaborate tests for trial courts to rule on and then see another 3-4 years of appeals about, without being so obviously partisan as to invite more Senate subpoenas and new Court members.
CaseyL
@catclub: @smith</
The Founders were highly suspicious of standing (i.e., permanent) armies, since the Crown used them as enforcers of Royal decree. (That’s why there is also an Amendment prohibiting the Government from forcing people to house soldiers.).
“Militias” were intended to be each locality’s guards, essentially: a part-time trained military force, ready to be called up if needed.
There was, IIRC, a lot of opposition to the Federal government even having a permanent official military department. The Department of Defense was originally the Department of War, and its ambit was to organize only in event of a war.
The Civil War era recruitment was immensely corrupt, with the wealthy routinely paying someone else to stand in for their own kids. And as wars became more mechanized, it became very clear that relying on locally-organized and funded militias was no longer a viable option.
wjca
Those crackpot “militias” would be hard pressed to show that they are anything resembling well regulated.
Anonymous At Work
@CaseyL: Third Amendment is because the British forced citizens to shelter soldiers at cost, no recourse, and let the soldiers including Hessians have their way (i.e. be abusive of their status or literally abusive). It has, to my knowledge, ever been used in Constitutional jurisprudence, and is a strong blow against both “The Second Amendment is second-most important” and “Original meaning should be timeless”.
Soprano2
@JPL: He thinks if he can stay out of jail and get TCFG elected he’ll get pardoned again. I hope they turn him away.
Fake Irishman
Don’t forget we’ve got another abortion one out there too, on whether federal laws requiring emergency health care can be superseded by state laws banning abortion in all cases except the life of the mother. (In the way I phrase it, the answer is no, but up to six members of the court will likely see it much differently)
Fake Irishman
And the January sixth case about interfering with an official proceeding.
TBone
@Omnes Omnibus: I’m glad you did, I’m now up to speed because of you. 💙
Mousebumples
It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
Still observing Flag Day and he’s taking time off to help sew a new flag design?
Anoniminous
@Mousebumples:
With any luck the fucker died in extreme pain.
zhena gogolia
So I’m finally watching The Aristocrats.
Why is that what is in my mind when looking at the picture of the Supreme Court?
The Aristocrats!
sab
@Baud: Is it bad of me to laugh about Scalia spinning in his grave?
cain
@Fake Irishman:
That will be a trap because if they rule for the states all the blue states will put laws into place that would supercede federal law and would be a bulwark against a GOP takeover of the federal govt on abortion.
cain
@Mousebumples:
I hope he’s having a miserable day sitting in a toilet.
Chris Johnson
@Anoniminous: Oh, I don’t think pain would be necessary.
Bruce K in ATH-GR
@Chris Johnson: How’s the saying go? Don’t live your life such that people are disappointed to hear you’re not dead?
eversor
@smith:
There’s two ways I view it and both hold some truth.
The good side of it is if you look back then where there wasn’t really a standing army it was often rag tag idiots who would need to be formed up.
The bad side of it is that in the south it was a rag tag group of idiots to enforce slavery and terrorize people.
MinuteMan
I wonder if there is historical precedent for banning firearms being brought to Supreme Court hearings? Seems likely that folks probably carried weapons, probably concealed but perhaps openly, to hearings back in the pre-civil war days. Can’t imagine that SCOTUS would ever vote that people had a 2A right to bring guns into their exalted presence.
artem1s
@wjca:
They may be crackpots but they are extremely well organized. The term milita just allows them to drape themselves in the flag. It’s not just a bunch of guys running around playing Call of Duty in their corn fields. They are buying and selling guns from each other to avoid background checks. They make/grow and sell meth and pot and run product across state lines. They have been known to protect wanted criminals by moving them across state lines or providing sanctuaries for them to hide out in (Pike County, OH shooters). Eric Rudolph and several Christian and militia terrorist movements profited off his violent acts and used the profits for recruiting and political gain). Because of the drugs and gun trafficking militias are very well funded – just like any gang. These ‘militias’ are large scale organized crime on a multi-state and massive scale. They are engaged in domestic terrorism. And they get away with because they white and are using the 2nd amendment and money from the likes of the NRA and the Federalist Society to shield them from being investigated fully.
Another Scott
@p.a.:
The Colonial Williamsburg Magazine has lots of interesting history.
The colony kept guns and ammunition and so forth locked up, and engaged in revolt when the powers that be tried to take them for himself. Why it’s almost like weapons were safely locked away unless they were needed for the common defense or something…
Grr…,
Scott.
Citizen Alan
@WereBear:
Which I find sadly amusing in light of my firm belief that everyone who voted for trump is going to burn in hell for all eternity.
Snarki, child of Loki
Gen. Washington had some harsh words about the quality of “the militia”, and the War of 1812 pretty much confirmed that they weren’t much good in a stand-up fight.
Philly Academy of Arts has (had?) a big painting from way back then, depicting “the militia practicing”, most notable for the wagon carrying large barrels of ale.
wjca
I realize this thread is probably dead by now. (Let’s hear it for the paying job!) Just want to note that “well organized” is not at all the same as “well regulated.”