Archive for the 'Supreme Court' Category

Source.

BALTIMORE (WBFF) — With public safety a top priority for Maryland lawmakers, the first bill filed in the 2023 session would severely limit where people with conceal carry permits could bring their firearms.

“If people don’t feel safe nothing else matters,” said Maryland Senate President, Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City).

Senate Bill One, also know as the Gun Saftey Act, was introduced by Sen. Jeff Waldstreicher (D-Montgomery). Waldstreicher says the bill is meant to fire back at the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In which, the Supreme Court found New York’s gun law requiring concealed carry applicants give a reason for carrying unconstitutional. The decision meant Maryland’s “good and substantial reason” requirement fell too.

“Bruen said anyone can take any weapon anywhere at any time. I think that’s dangerous and Maryland needs to respond,” said Waldstreicher.

With more Marylanders being granted conceal carry permits, the Gun Safety Act would ban them from taking firearms within 100 feet of any public place. However, “public place” is a broad term in the legislation. In addition to restricting guns inside hospitals, churches, and government buildings — any retail establishments, restaurants, hotels, and movie theatres are also listed.

“Outside of the home what would be a space that someone could legally carry a gun?” questioned a FOX45 reporter.

“So, the bill does not define where you can, it simply says and clarifies where you cannot,” said Waldstreicher.

At least he admits that his intention is to defy the Supreme Court.  It’ll pass.  Now what will the SCOTUS do about it?

Surprising no one, if you haven’t been following the NY case of Ivan Antonyuk v. NY, the state of NY still hasn’t accepted Bruen, and won’t until the SCOTUS slaps them down again.  The federal district court ruled in favor of Antonyuk in a lengthy and well crafted decision that issued a stay on the recently enacted NY law, only to be blocked and held in abatement by the 2nd Circuit by a three-judge panel who said nothing about the merits of the decision.  The 2nd circuit overrode the district court decision with only a few cursory sentences.

The Antonyuk case was appealed directly to the supreme court, with Sotomayor demanding that NY reply.  They did with this brief.  In it, the state of NY insults the SCOTUS and tells them they aren’t needed.

NY to the Supreme Court

Friend of TCJ Stephen Stamboulieh, a terrific attorney, genuinely good man and defender of liberty, issued his reply, and it’s a wonderful thing to behold.

Stamboulieh to the Supreme Court in Response to NY

As Gandalf the Grey said (before he became Gandalf the White), “Until at last I smote my enemy and threw down his ruin upon the mountainside.”

This may not be over so the conclusory sentiment may be wrong, but may Stephen be victorious over his enemies and throw down their ruin upon the mountainside.

Reason.

Today I filed an amicus brief in support of a cert. petition challenging Maryland’s ban on various semiautomatic rifles. The case is Bianchi v. Frosh, and was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, and individual plaintiffs. Petitioners are represented by the D.C. powerhouse litigation boutique Cooper & Kirk. (Docket page here, Petition here.)

[ … ]

1. Many lower courts have narrowed Heller from below.

2. Failure to grant review would tempt Congress to enact a national ban, over-riding the policy choices of 43 states.

3. The Fourth Circuit’s novel rule that governments can ban all firearms that are supposedly “like” military arms is based on an egregious misreading of one phrase from Heller. The Fourth Circuit rule would uphold a ban on many common firearms, such as the ubiquitous Colt 1911 .45 caliber pistol, and every semiautomatic pistol that is essentially similar to the Colt, which is to say all of them.

4. The Maryland ban harms public safety because the rifles that it singles out for prohibition are easier to fire accurately, easier to store safely, and often superior for lawful self-defense. To say that improved firearms can be banned because criminals might take advantage of the improvements would be to say that firearms can never be improved.

He gets into “common usage” as well, and we can all agree that any weapon can be and has been a military weapon and that the common usage doctrine was an abominable and inconsistent idea.  As one reader pointed out recently, if something isn’t in common usage, it cannot be introduced into circulation and therefore will never become commonly used.

But Kopel is one of the good guys, and he knows what he’s doing.  He has to play within the rules he’s been given.

Pathetic news.

The Supreme Court on Monday permitted a COVID-19 vaccine mandate in New York that doesn’t include a religious exemption, the latest instance in which the nation’s highest court has declined to wade into the issue of vaccination requirements imposed because of the coronavirus pandemic.

New York state imposed the vaccine mandate for health care workers in August. The policy allows for medical exemptions but not those based on religious objections. An earlier religious exemption to the requirement expired last month.

The Supreme Court was considering two emergency challenges to that mandate and decided to allow the law to stand in both of them. In each case, three conservatives – Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch – said they would have supported temporarily halting enforcement of the mandate.

“Sometimes dissenting religious beliefs can seem strange and bewildering. In times of crisis, this puzzlement can evolve into fear and anger,” Gorsuch wrote in dissenting from the decision to not block the mandate’s enforcement.

“One can only hope today’s ruling will not be the final chapter in this grim story,” he continued. “Cases like this one may serve as cautionary tales for those who follow. But how many more reminders do we need that ‘the Constitution is not to be obeyed or disobeyed as the circumstances of a particular crisis . . . may suggest’?”

Nurses, doctors and other health care workers asserted in a lawsuit that the lack of a religious exemption violated their First Amendment right to practice religion. The objections centered on the use fetal cells from abortions in the vaccines’ development.

That means Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh were opposed to stepping in front of the mandate and stopping it.

Pathetic.

Eternity calls them.  We will all answer for our sins.

Even more and more with each passing day, he shows his true colors.  What terrible judgment by GWB to nominate him.

WASHINGTON — The chief justice of the United States, John Roberts, warned Friday that the Supreme Court risks losing its own authority if it allows the existence of a law like Texas’ near-total abortion ban, which attempts to circumvent the courts.

In a strongly worded opinion joined by the high court’s three liberal justices, Roberts wrote that the “clear purpose and actual effect” of the Texas law was “to nullify this Court’s rulings.” That, he said, undermines the Constitution and the fundamental role of the Supreme Court and the court system as a whole.

The opinion was a remarkable plea by the chief justice to his colleagues on the court to resist the efforts by right-wing lawmakers to get around court decisions they dislike, in this case Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that made abortion legal in the United States, within limits. But in this case, his urgent request was largely ignored by the other justices on the court who were appointed by Republicans.

His point to them was that the court system should decide what the law is, and it should resist efforts like that of the Texas Legislature to get around the courts by limiting the ability of abortion providers to sue.

It is a basic principle, he wrote, “that the Constitution is the ‘fundamental and paramount law of the nation,’ and ‘[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.'” He cited as proof the landmark 1803 Marbury v. Madison case, which established the principle of judicial review, allowing the court to nullify laws that violate the Constitution.

“If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery,” he said, quoting the 1809 U.S. v. Peters case, which found that state legislatures can’t overrule federal courts.

He can’t get another vote to side with him and the rest of the communists on the court.

Funny, that statement I bolded.  I learned in Civics class in elementary school that the Congress made laws rather than the judiciary.  I guess he went to a different civics class than I did.

I can assure him, however, that the constitution is no solemn mockery.  I would say though, with the majority of U.S. citizens, that the SCOTUS had become an unsolemn mockery, a gaggle of court jesters rather than court officers.

Imagine.  All of this over the right to murder the unborn.  Worship of Molech indeed.  God judges the nation.

News.

A federal judge in Louisiana issued a nationwide preliminary injunction Tuesday against President Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers.

Judge Terry A. Doughty in the U.S. District Court Western District of Louisiana ruled in favor of a request from Republican Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry to block an emergency regulation issued Nov. 4 by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that required the COVID shot for nearly every full-time employee, part-time employee, volunteer, and contractor working at a wide range of healthcare facilities receiving Medicaid or Medicaid funding.

Louisiana was joined in the lawsuit by attorneys general in 13 other states.

Doughty argued in his ruling that the Biden administration does not have the constitutional authority to go around Congress by issuing such a mandate.

“If the executive branch is allowed to usurp the power of the legislative branch to make laws, two of the three powers conferred by our Constitution would be in the same hands,” he wrote. “If human nature and history teach anything, it is that civil liberties face grave risks when governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency.

“During a pandemic such as this one, it is even more important to safeguard the separation of powers set forth in our Constitution to avoid erosion of our liberties,” he added.

[ … ]

Doughty’s ruling echoes one from U.S. District Judge Matthew Schelp, who issued a 32-page order on Monday blocking the Biden administration from enforcing their vaccine mandate on health care workers in 10 states.

Ah, I see that the lower courts are doing the heavy lifting for the Supreme Tyrants, work they’re too cowardly to do themselves.

I had been cataloging the number of times this had been rejected with no explanation from the Supreme Tyrants, but have lost count now.  This is their latest cowardly act when they denied yet another appeal.

Perhaps when they’re no longer afraid and have stuck their fingers up in the air for long enough, they’ll do the right thing and bash this mandate.

Or perhaps not.  Perhaps they’ll show yet again what tyrants and cowards they really are.

News from D.C.

A sharply divided Supreme Court early Thursday said it will not block a new Texas law that deputizes any Texan to enforce a six-week ban on abortions. Five justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — explained in a brief, unsigned majority opinion that the abortion advocates asking for an emergency stay “raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue,” but they were unable to untangle the “complex and novel antecedent procedural questions” raised by the law.

The four dissenters — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — argued in separate rebuttals that their five colleagues, without any real debate, were rewarding Texas lawmakers for inventing a novel scheme to stomp on decades of Supreme Court precedent.

“The statutory scheme before the Court is not only unusual, but unprecedented,” Roberts wrote, and he would have granted “preliminary relief” at least until “the courts may consider whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws in such a manner.” Instead, the court allowed the law to take effect before lower courts weighed in, “without ordinary merits briefing, and without oral argument.”

Okay so let’s break this down.  Two squishes sided with the constitutionalists along with a very confused woman, and the communist sided with the communists.

Never forget that George W. Bush gave us Roberts.  And also two wars.  And also the Patriot Act.  And did nothing for the recognition of gun rights.  Never forget he supported a renewed when the sunset provision took over.

He was always an enemy, never a friend.

There are a lot of them

GOA & GOF

Ted Cruz and 24 other republican senators.

FPC.

Dave Hardy.

In all there are 43 briefs.

… 43 amicus briefs filed supporting this case. Among these groups, NRA-ILA is heartened to see support from numerous elected officials including 176 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives led by Rep. Claudia Tenney (NY-22), 25 U.S. Senators led by Sen. Ted Cruz (TX), 26 Attorneys General led by Mark Brnovich (AZ) and Eric S. Schmitt (MO), and Governor Greg Abbott (TX).

But the Supreme Court is filled with controllers and cowards.  My prediction: they’ve heard the truth now, and they will ignore it, or find some way to whittle down the scope of the decision, or decide that the meat of the claims have no standing in their court because blah blah blah.

From a number of readers, the SCOTUS has placed limits on the scope of power police may take, while protecting the fourth amendment.

David Codrea has snipped the major details (this isn’t a long ruling).

Held: Neither the holding nor logic of Cady justifies such warrantless searches and seizures in the home. Cady held that a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did not violate the Fourth Amendment. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that the officers who patrol the “public highways” are often called to discharge noncriminal “community caretaking functions,” such as responding to disabled vehicles or investigating accidents. 413 U. S., at 441. But searches of vehicles and homes are constitutionally different, as the Cady opinion repeatedly stressed. Id., at 439, 440– 442. The very core of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee is the right of a person to retreat into his or her home and “there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Florida v. Jardines, 569 U. S. 1, 6. A recognition of the existence of “community caretaking” tasks, like rendering aid to motorists in disabled vehicles, is not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere. Pp. 3–4. 953 F. 3d 112, vacated and remanded.

This is also being discussed at Ammoland here and here, and GOA is calling this a huge victory.

No doubt it is, and this is the right decision.  But some of the justices blather on and on about why they think it was okay to vote the way they did, which vote seems for all the wrong reasons.

I saw the decision, and looked immediately to see what Justice Clarence Thomas said.  He matters.  The rest of them are complete frauds and what they have to say matters no more to me than when a dog barks.

Now.  Let’s see how much this decision actually has an effect in the real life behavior of police.  As for the so-called “community caretaker” issue, that’s a myth fabricated out of whole cloth, with no basis in the law, and in complete contradiction with prior decisions such as Castle Rock versus Gonzales, Warren versus D.C., and DeShaney versus Winnebago County.

Only an idiot would believe in something like the “community caretaker” foolishness.  But the SCOTUS seems to be consumed with the notion – except for Justice Thomas.

This specific instance also highlights the continuing threat of so-called extreme risk protection orders.  Those come with warrants, while this case dealt with actions taken without a warrant.

Warrants are handed out like candy by judges.

Reason.

There are at least five major differences between Clement’s QP and the Court’s QP.

First, the Court’s QP focuses on the state’s decision to deny “concealed-carry licenses” to the petitioners. Clement’s QP challenged the law on its face, and as applied. Is the Court’s decision now limited to an as-applied challenge, rather than a facial challenge? Might the Court leave open the possibility that other may-issue regimes are unconstitutional? Are there some unique aspects of the New York law that would distinguish it from other may issue regimes? Is there the possibility the Court will need to remand for further explication of the regime? Is there some evidence that the state improperly denied licenses to these particular plaintiffs? Might there be some Due Process Clause argument? Then again, the QP references the Second Amendment, so a Due Process issue would not be squarely presented. I see this slippery change as a way for the Court to issue a very, very narrow decision that will leave the issue unsettled.

But of course.  Cowards and totalitarians.

There is more at the link.  Zelman Partisans makes is simple for us.

By changing it from a question about law-abiding citizens carrying in public, to denial of licenses Period — no mention of “law-abiding” people carrying — the InJustices can now say, Gee, states have to be able to deny some licenses, otherwise prohibited persons could apply and get licenses. No one wants that to happen.

They’ve dodged the entire issue of denial of rights based on an arbitrary you didn’t show good enough need to carry a gun. The point of contention was shall versus may issue, and if the Second Amendment applies outside the home. Now it’s is licensing constitutional?

Prediction: 5/4 denial of licenses does not not violate the Second Amendment; Roberts with the majority. “May issue” remains because the Court refused to look at that.

Although it could go 6/3. Gorsuch is such an insufferable hair-splitter that he may go along with the majority, too. On the other hand, he might object to the reframed question itself. Hard to say.

As I observed, I’d rather that the SCOTUS not have taken the case up at all.  Is there anything requiring courage that the SCOTUS is actually willing to do?  They take the easy ones, leave aside the hard ones, and when they do take a hard one they limit the scope of the review so they don’t have to actually decide anything of significance.

Of what worth are they?  Why do we even have a supreme court?  Wouldn’t we be better off without them?