Archive for the 'Supreme Court' Category

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?

The Hill.

The Supreme Court on Monday denied appeals from three people who sought to have their right to own guns reinstated after being convicted of nonviolent crimes, a move that disappointed gun rights advocates.

The denials, which were issued without comment or noted dissent, left intact lower court rulings which found that the lifetime bans did not run afoul of Second Amendment protections.

One case involved a Pennsylvania man who sought to have his right to own a firearm restored after he was subjected to a lifetime ban following a misdemeanor conviction for driving under the influence in 2005.

The other cases involved a Pennsylvania woman convicted of lying on her tax returns and a man convicted of copyright violations and smuggling counterfeit cassette tapes in 1987.

For a case to be heard, or granted a writ of certiorari, at least four justices must vote to take up the case.

How sad.  The Supreme Cast Of Clowns couldn’t even find four justices to agree to hear these cases.  Thus, they ensured that if these three people, or thousands of people just like them in America, want means of self defense, they must obtain it illegally.

They have ensured the very thing the system claims to want to repair, i.e., that people must become lawbreakers in order to do things usual and typical humans do.

How arbitrary.  How cruel.  How utterly detestable.  How expected and customary from the court.

PJM.

“Applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their free exercise claim; they are irreparably harmed by the loss of free exercise rights ‘for even minimal periods of time’; andthe State has not shown that ‘public health would be imperiled’ by employing less restrictive measures,” the Supreme Court ruled. “Accordingly, applicants are entitled to an injunction pending appeal.”

[ … ]

… “even if the government withdraws or modifies a COVID restriction in the course of litigation, that does not necessarily moot the case. And so long as a case is not moot, litigants otherwise entitled to emergency injunctive relief remain entitled to such relief where the applicants ‘remain under a constant threat’ that government officials will use their power to reinstate the challenged restrictions.”

Whatever.  Even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time.  Any decision that doesn’t recognize the God-given right and duty of Christians to worship completely free from hindrance by the state is still weak.

The really interesting thing to me is this bit: ” … litigants otherwise entitled to emergency injunctive relief remain entitled to such relief where the applicants ‘remain under a constant threat’ that government officials will use their power to reinstate the challenged restrictions.”

And no, that wasn’t what the Supreme Court said when they dismissed the case of NY Rifle and Pistol Association against NY on the basis of removal of the restrictions on travel, thus making the claims moot.

Because rules are for little people, and consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

High priests of law, garbed in black robes according to the liturgy.

Judge Silberman wrote a dissent challenging not only how the majority applied New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to the case before it but also challenging the entirety of the Supreme Court decision. It’s this last aspect that makes Silberman’s dissent noteworthy.

Silberman points out that “Justice Thomas has already persuasively demonstrated that New York Times was a policy-driven decision masquerading as constitutional law. *** As with the rest of the opinion, the actual malice requirement was simply cut from whole cloth.”

Although Silberman acknowledges the difficulty inherently in overruling “landmark” cases, he has come to see the 57-year-old New York Times opinion as “a threat to American Democracy. It must go.” And then Silberman goes into overdrive defending the Constitution.

He makes plain his disdain for Justice Kennedy’s contention that “criticism of the Court is tantamount to an attack on the Constitution.” Instead, “I readily admit that I have little regard for holdings of the Court that dress up policymaking in constitutional garb.” It’s that kind of dissimulation that is “the real attack on the Constitution.” Indeed, “[t]he notion that the Court should somehow act in a policy role as a Council of Revision is illegitimate.”

I have only one correction I would make.  I don’t have “little regard” for such legal antics.  I have no regard for it.

So just to make clear, I consider all such decisions to be illegitimate, judges and justices who do that sort of thing to be usurpers, impostors and tyrants, and all of their decisions illegitimate – even those decisions which benefit me.  I don’t need them or want them.  To me they are all clowns and carnival barkers, pretending authority and wisdom, and when God sits in the heavens and mocks them, I follow suit here on earth.

Is that clear enough for you, Mr. Kennedy?

Forbes.

The 4th Amendment right against warrantless searches of a person’s home is a pillar of Americans’ constitutional liberties. Before a police officer, or any other government official, can enter your home, they must show a judge that they have probable cause that they will discover specific evidence of a crime.

There are some limited exceptions to this right. There is an “exigent circumstances” exception. If a police officer looks through a home’s window and sees a person about to stab another person, the officer can burst through the door to prevent the attack. There is also the “emergency aid” exception. If the officer looked through the same window and saw the resident collapsing from an apparent heart attack, the officer could run into the house to administer aid. Neither of these cases violates the 4th Amendment and few would argue that it should be otherwise.

However, there is a broader cousin to these amendments called the “community caretaking” exception. It originally derives from a case in which the police took a gun out of the trunk of an impounded vehicle without first obtaining a warrant. The Supreme Court held that there is a community caretaking exception to the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement because police perform “community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” The Court held that police activity in furtherance of these functions does not violate the 4th Amendment as long as it is executed in a “reasonable” manner.

Note that, unlike the first two exceptions, this exception is not limited to immediate emergencies. In the Supreme Court case just described there was only a general concern that vandals might eventually break into the impounded car and steal any weapons that were in the trunk. So the community care exception is far broader than the other two.

Also, all three exceptions allow warrantless searches so long as the police officer acted “reasonably”. That is one of the easiest constitutional standards to meet and is a significantly lower standard than “probable cause”, which is required for a warrant. As long as an officer might reasonably think that a warrantless search will alleviate a danger to the community, the search is considered constitutional.

There is a vigorous debate about whether the community care exception can apply to searches of a person’s home as well as of their car. Vehicles have always had less 4th Amendment protection than homes, which are considered a person’s most private sphere. Federal courts have been divided on this question and the Supreme Court has not ruled on it until now.

The Court has just announced that it will hear arguments next month on a case that presents this issue: Caniglia v. Strom. In this case, Mr. Caniglia was arguing with his wife and melodramatically put an unloaded gun on the table and said “shoot me now and get it over with.” His wife called a non-emergency number for the police who arrived shortly thereafter. The police disagreed about whether Mr. Caniglia was acting “normal” or “agitated” but they convinced him to take an ambulance to the local hospital for evaluation. The police did not accompany him.

While he was on his way to the hospital, Mrs. Caniglia told the police that her husband kept two handguns in the home. The police decided to search his home for the guns without obtaining a warrant. (Mrs. Caniglia’s consent to have the police search their home was legally negated because the police untruthfully told her that her husband had consented to the seizure of any guns.) The police located and seized the two guns. Mr. Caniglia sued for the violation of his 4th Amendment right to privacy and his 2nd Amendment right to keep handguns in the home for self-protection.

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals (which is the federal court just below the Supreme Court in Caniglia’s jurisdiction) sided with the police. The court wrote: “At its core, the community caretaking doctrine is designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action when unforeseen circumstances present some transient hazard that requires immediate attention. Understanding the core purpose of the doctrine leads inexorably to the conclusion that it should not be limited to the motor vehicle context. Threats to individual and community safety are not confined to the highways.”

The author ends with this.  “The Supreme Court is going to take a very close look at this case and there is a good chance that they will overrule the lower court’s decision.”

I’m not so sure.  The communists (the leftist wing of the court, including Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Roberts) will certainly decide to keep the ruling of the circuit.  The law and order statists (Alito and Kavanaugh) will likely decide with the leftists, I’m afraid, even if it’s a concurring ruling disagreeing with the majority but still vote to keep the circuit ruling.

The only ones who will vote to strike down the circuit ruling will be Thomas and Gorsuch (maybe), and Barrett is a wild card, but it won’t matter what she does anyway.  This is one of those cases where you wish the supreme court would decline to take it because the damage they do is worse than the other outcome, where this ruling is only valid in the 1st Circuit.

To say that America has become a Stasi state is a grotesque understatement.