Your compatriots can’t do it. Though they vote…
But when it comes to knowing the name of a justice, the public falls short, with 52 percent unable to name one of the nine justices.
The most well-known is liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was the focus of the documentary ” RBG.” Some 25 percent could name her.
Next up were Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts, at 14 percent.
I got two: Kamhul and the Witch King!
The war on God is getting so heated that even National Review has noticed:
If you ever need much evidence that the growing “God gap” in American politics fosters an immense amount of ignorance and occasionally outright bigotry, look no farther than the concern — the alarm, even — that Amy Coney Barrett is on President Trump’s short list to replace Anthony Kennedy on the United States Supreme Court.
The alarm isn’t about her credentials. She’s checked every box of excellence — law review, appellate-court clerkship, Supreme Court clerkship (with Justice Scalia), elite law-firm experience, law professor at an elite law school, and now experience as a federal judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She’s a young, brilliant woman at the apex of her profession.
So, beyond her obvious originalist judicial philosophy (shared to varying degrees by every person on Trump’s list of potential nominees), what’s the problem with Judge Barrett. Why do some progressives single her out for particular scorn?
It turns out that she’s a faithful Christian who lives a Christian life very similar to the lives of millions upon millions of her fellow American believers.
No, really, that’s the objection.
It’s not just that they’re afraid of losing Roe v. Wade (the Dred Scot of the 20th Century, but worse and so wrong even Jane Roe came around). They’re afraid of losing the battle to finish off what’s left of America. They’re afraid of failing their prince, not realizing that it’s a lost cause, win or lose.
Imagine if Barret was Jewish or Muslim. Or an atheist. Or a satanist. If she was, then the howls from the same progressives happy to attack a Christian would be audible on the moon.
Still not sure about the Fed-Soc.
A year to the date after the temporary affirmance, the Supreme Court found the President still has the Constitutional authority to regulate immigration as determined by law.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, foreign
nationals seeking entry into the United States undergo a
vetting process to ensure that they satisfy the numerous
requirements for admission. The Act also vests the President
with authority to restrict the entry of aliens whenever
he finds that their entry “would be detrimental to the
interests of the United States.” 8 U. S. C. §1182(f). Relying
on that delegation, the President concluded that it was
necessary to impose entry restrictions on nationals of
countries that do not share adequate information for an
informed entry determination, or that otherwise present
national security risks. Presidential Proclamation No.
9645, 82 Fed. Reg. 45161 (2017) (Proclamation). The
plaintiffs in this litigation, respondents here, challenged
the application of those entry restrictions to certain aliens
abroad. We now decide whether the President had authority
under the Act to issue the Proclamation, and whether
the entry policy violates the Establishment Clause of the
Under these circumstances, the Government has set
forth a sufficient national security justification to survive
rational basis review. We express no view on the soundness
of the policy. We simply hold today that plaintiffs
have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the
merits of their constitutional claim.
Trump v. Hawaii, 17-965, 585 U. S. ____, at Slip 6 … 43 (June 26, 2018).
This is a major victory for the administration and a blow for the people of the US, if any now – it’s kind of late, who do not desire a new civil conflagration.
Today comes a reversal of a sad trend I’ve been following, here, since at least June of 2016. I’ve rarely been happier about being wrong – I had predicted an affirmance.
Yet, I was right about the overall trend against freedom:
The worn-out line of the sheep goes: “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.” Two problems there: 1) you don’t know what they consider “wrong”, and; 2) how about when the government is wrong? What then? Move to a freer country? There are at least ten out there – one right next door to the U.S. Sit in your house and do absolutely nothing? That can be considered an indication of criminal intent or an invitation for a “welfare check-in” by the police.
The odds are you do not have anything to worry about. Obey the government in general, don’t make any waves, and they will probably leave you alone. Probably was not what the Founders had in mind with the Bill of Rights though. They desired protection from ALL government overreach.
Today, the Supreme Court put this issue to rest in a 5-4 decision upholding the right against unreasonable searches. Thank you, Justice Roberts and the Liberals.
2. The Government did not obtain a warrant supported by probable
cause before acquiring Carpenter’s cell-site records. It acquired
those records pursuant to a court order under the Stored Communications
Act, which required the Government to show “reasonable
grounds” for believing that the records were “relevant and material to
an ongoing investigation.” 18 U. S. C. §2703(d). That showing falls
well short of the probable cause required for a warrant. Consequently,
an order issued under §2703(d) is not a permissible mechanism for
accessing historical cell-site records. Not all orders compelling the
production of documents will require a showing of probable cause. A warrant is required only in the rare case where the suspect has a legitimate
privacy interest in records held by a third party. And even
though the Government will generally need a warrant to access
CSLI, case-specific exceptions—e.g., exigent circumstances—may
support a warrantless search. Pp. 18–22.
819 F. 3d 880, reversed and remanded.
Carpenter v. The Empire, No. 16–402, 585 U. S. ____, at Slip. 3-4 (June 22, 2018).
Good news to start the hot weekend.
More good news: TPC is now available in print!
The Nine today ruled 7-2 in favor of a Christian baker in Colorado and against the bigoted, anti-Christian, anti-freedom Colorado “Civil Rights” Commision.
The ruling, as lop-sided as it was, was mired in the kind of language employed by judges to maintain their employment in the future. Still, we’ll take what we can get. Also, I sense, here nearing the end, the pendulum beginning to swing back this way. I suspect it may return Poe style; one might hope, for once, that rats are available when needed. Anway, if you’re so inclined,
The intelligent discussion begins on page 26 with the concurrences of Justices Gorsuch and Thomas.
As the Court also explains, the only reason the Commission seemed to supply for its discrimination was that it found Mr. Phillips’s religious beliefs “offensive.” Ibid. That kind of judgmental dismissal of a sincerely held religious belief is, of course, antithetical to the First Amendment and cannot begin to satisfy strict scrutiny. The Constitution protects not just popular religious exercises from the condemnation of civil authorities. It protects them all. Because the Court documents each of these points carefully and thoroughly, I am pleased to join its opinion in full.
–Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al. v. Colorado “Civil Rights” Commission et al., 584 U. S. ____, at Slip 27, (June 4, 2018)(Gorsuch Concurrence).
This was not a case about a baker discriminating against gays. It was a case about a government discriminating against Christians. The ruling, murky as it is, is a slap in the face of tyranny and a blow for freedom. That’s needed as the animus is everywhere. Times have changed indeed when traditional Christian beliefs (and associated expression and determinations of association) are declared “offensive.” I find that offensive.
I suspect that the commision membership has changed since the underlying events of this case. The director is newer, innocent perhaps. Still, for the curious, one can find the current Colorado “Civil Rights” Commision, probably held up under a rock, maybe worshiping Moloch, in Suite 825, 1560 Broadway, Denver.
America, communism, Constitution, crazy, enemy combatants, firearms, First Amendment, Founders, freedom, gun control, John Paul Stevens, law, New York Times, NRA, repeal the Second Amendment, Second Amendment, statutory interpretation, Supreme Court, tyranny
John Paul Stevens is a different man than John Paul Jones. Both were born around the same time. But Stevens has hung in there longer. His faculties may not have lasted so well however.
– so Stevens penned in the New York Times yesterday.
Let’s see what the old bow tie had to say (entirety):
Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.
That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.
Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.
For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.
That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.
That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.
Come on, Stevens! In your lifetime? The man has seen a lot. He surely remembers the Civil Rights Movement, the Civil War, and the Children’s Crusade of 1212. Like that latter episode, the current hubbub is as misguided, nefarious, and sure to be as ill-fated.
I’ve covered gun control previously and the kids’ march especially. While not backing off the issue I’ve urged restraint towards the young, uninformed, and naive children. However, I’ve said that those behind the mania should be held to account. Stevens falls into that category. I actually welcomed his editorial position as I figured, aged or not, he is among the very best the grabbers could offer.
I am sorely disappointed.
There’s nothing there. At all.
A sufficient counter argument to this tripe is: BULLSHIT!
Now we have that all settled…
It’s funny, almost. First, Stevens ran his editorial on a digital system – see that above link. This is 21st Century news. It’s different from older newspapers, say, from the 18th century. It’s kind of like the difference highlighted by the Times’s feature picture:
NYT. Yes, as corrected, that’s a musket up top….
Their point, his idiotic point, is that the one weapon was available when the 2A was enacted. The other, being a modern creation, was not and, thus, is not protected. Funny.
By the same illogic, the Times’s website, to say nothing of what you’re reading here and now, is not protected by the First Amendment. It’s not free speech nor free press. The only real, legal newsprint is print. If you don’t get news on low quality paper with blotchy ink from some young boy on the street corner, then you’re as bad as the NRA killing all those kids they never kill.
It’s also almost funny that the left wants to repeal something that, for an age, they denied existed. I appreciate their newfound honesty but it’s a little late in coming. They literally used to say the 2A wasn’t really part of the Constitution – despite it’s being right there in black and white. Conversely, they had no problem seeing Abortion floating in some nebulous prenumbra. Maybe one needs a bow tie to see it all clearly.
Prior to 2010 or so most Con Law textbooks were utterly devoid of any mention of the 2A. A few, like Lawrence Friedman’s, may scant mention, usually with a bare citation to Miller v. US (1939).
Why repeal something that’s not even real? My guess is a case of bad losering.
Stevens rests much of his “argument” on Miller. Liberals love to pretend that was the only court decision on the 2A prior to the 21st century. It was not. But it was perhaps the worst decided and most misinterpreted. So the Nine said civilians had no right to non-military quality arms. What does that mean? They didn’t say but one could easily extrapolate that, under their reasoning, only military-grade weapons qualify for legal protection against infringement. Probably not what the left had in mind. Of course, what the Court had in mind in 1939 later fell apart factually. In Vietnam soldiers made copious use of short-barreled shotguns. Hmmm.
At any rate, Heller and MacDonald cured the question of “does the Second Amendment really say what it plainly says?” It does.
Stevens dissented in Heller … and lost. They say, “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.” He says, now, “if we can’t beat it, repeal it.” Good luck with that.
And, again maybe it’s the age thing – dunno, but here Stevens violates his own canons of legal interpretation. His approach, as detailed in The Shakespeare Canon of Statutory Interpretation, J. P. Stevens, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, April, 1992:
- Read the Statute
- Read the Whole Statute
- Read the Text in Contemporary Context
- Look into Legislative History
- Use Some Common Sense
Taking the 2A as what it is, a Super Statute, and applying those rules, one reaches an incontrovertible conclusion: the thing is what it is and means what it says. 1) the language is unambiguous. That should be the end of it. But: 2) it fits with the rest of the Bill of Rights. 3) Temporizing the thought, either then or now, it fits with the idea of individual liberty. 4) the Founders demanded an armed citizenry as deterrent of tyranny. 5) What do the various facts tell us?
No question should remain after the first four steps are utilized. If, however, one needs more proof to affirm the meaning and intent by number five, then one should analyze what’s going on with guns in America. Here, as with most logic, the left fails completely.
The facts tell us: armed citizens still stand in the way of tyrants; guns save lives; the innocent lives lost to guns are: few, offset by the many saved, only part of the greater number of regrettable homicides annually, tiny in comparison to lives lost to other means/things, etc.; having the highest number and percentage of private guns in the world, the US still has one of the lowest gun murder rates on the planet, and; even with all those guns, and with all the hideous social, economic, and legal changes in the country, there has been no great or noticeable change in gun usage of late.
But why look at the law and the facts? Heck, that’s what judges do. Maybe it’s better to listen to young know-nothings scream about anecdotes. Maybe it’s better to blame the NRA for things it had nothing to do with. Promote a little fear. A little hysteria. Some lies.
And, for what? The Second Amendment will not be repealed any time soon. Good luck assembling a Convention of the States. Better luck getting super majorities in Congress and the State Houses. They can’t even get more “meaningful” gun control through in regular statutory form – though they try.
What would the Stevens’s Amendment say? A plain repeal? How would that work or be worded? “The rights of the people are hereby infringed.” That’s what he’s suggesting. The natural right to arms is independent of any amendment or law. It’s just that in some places it is infringed upon, violated. Simply repealing the 2A would not necessarily ban guns from private hands.
Maybe he means to include that ban explicitly in the new language. “The right is infringed and the people are barred from keeping and bearing arms.” Perhaps there could be a specific exemption for 18th century antiques or the swords and slings of Stevens’s youth…
I’m glad Stevens spoke up. It’s good to know what the enemy is thinking, what they want. They want to disarm you and leave you utterly helpless before their other plans and actions. Once more, see the thoughts, words, and acts of [pick your favorite murderous dictator from history].
In his final decade on the Court Stevens voted to extend at least some basic rights to Americans declared and held as enemy combatants, enemies of the government and the people. That might work out well for him. Some, like Vox Day, suggest Stevens has, via his First-Amendment-unprotected speech, committed treason and should be arrested for it. Debbie Gun Control-Schultz (and any co-signers) too. It’s a strange new world we’ve entered. I’ll leave that alone except to say: 1) enemy combatants do not have to be arrested..., and; 2) hey, Stevens is old, 97 going on 1,000; why bother?
If this was their best, then their best won’t do. A rock group told me so. However, now that they’re being honest about the thoughts and desires, we had best keep an eye on these anti-freedom types. Freedom: defend it or lose it.
*This subject shall be the focus of a video retort for FP tomorrow, likely to be linked and reposted here. Stay tuned.
Only trouble is, gee whiz
I’m dreamin’ my [country] away…
The DACA Dreamer “kids” stay in administrative limbo; so say the Supremes (not Don Everly):
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the Trump administration’s appeal of a federal judge’s ruling that requires the government to keep the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program going.
Under a lower court order that remains in effect, the Department of Homeland Security must continue to accept renewal applications from the roughly 700,000 young people who are currently enrolled in the program, known as DACA. The administration had intended to shut the program down by March 5, but that deadline is now largely meaningless.
In a brief order, the court said simply, “It is assumed the court of appeals will act expeditiously to decide this case.”
Someone once said that when you assume something, you make an ass out of “u” and me. In this case, it’s you, me, immigration law, the rule of law, separation of powers, and the rest of the America.
Not to worry, the wise Trump proposes to administratively ban bump stocks!
Florida vs. Georgia isn’t just an October football classic. It’s now a Supreme Court case – one which might have ramifications for the rest of the USA too. It’s a fight over water.
Every 45 seconds or so, oystermen plunge their long-handled tongs into the shallow blue-gray waters of Apalachicola Bay, rake the bottom and deposit meager-looking piles on the bow of their flat-bottomed boat. A gloved co-worker culls the keepers from the empty shells and immature oysters, which are tossed back.
“See these guys here?” asked Shannon Hartsfield, whose family has fished and oystered and crabbed and shrimped here for four generations. He pointed to a nearby boat.
“Three tongers and one culler? Usually you’d have one tonger and two or three cullers. That’s the flip-flop. Used to, that man right there’d keep two cullers busy all day long.”
Apalachicola Bay, an estuary recognized by the United Nations for its uniqueness, once produced 10 percent of the nation’s oysters and 90 percent of those from Florida. Why it doesn’t anymore – why its oyster production has fallen so dramatically – has been the subject of decades of litigation, which now has landed before the Supreme Court.
Florida v. Georgia, which is to be argued Monday, is a water fight that pits the thirsty megalopolis of Atlanta and the farmers of southeastern Georgia against conservationists and seafood producers in this stretch of the Florida Panhandle called the Forgotten Coast. Both states need the fresh water that starts in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains – as well as in a spring just south of the Atlanta airport – and meanders hundreds of miles before finding its way into the Gulf of Mexico via the Apalachicola River.
So far, Georgia has been the big winner, aided by decisions from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that allow it to keep the lion’s share of the water.
Often in such Supreme Court fights, each state wants water for growth. But in Apalachicola, leaders say getting a greater share is necessary to allow the place to stay as it is. The fresh water provides the perfect degree of bay salinity required to sustain the seafood industry, they say, and thus a way of life.
I crossed Apalachicola Bay a week or two ago, as I have many times the past two decades. I have two connections to the above story. One, I used to live in metro Atlanta; I used some of that water. Two, I’ve eaten my share of the Oysters, maybe the best in the world and in one of the best settings. I can kind of see each side of the issues here.
One time, maybe 15 years ago, I took a water tour up the Apalachicola River, from “downtown” Apalachicola, home of Caroline’s. It was a shockingly cold, windy December day. Luckily, formerly fat Perrin was well insulated.
The guide was great as he pointed out trees, other boats, and alligators. Then he mentioned the water war. His solution was simple: they should bomb Atlanta. Okay. It made a little sense, considering his perspective; we were on his river, recipient of whatever flow ATL dictated at the time. I was mildly alarmed as, at that time, I lived in the proposed target area. He jested, I was almost sure.
The point here, well, I don’t really have a point about the matter at bar. The greater point is that, as urban areas grow, they need water. My Western readers are acutely aware of this issue. It has to come from somewhere.
Atlanta, its political leaders (or what passes…) have proposed all manner of wacky solutions. I’ve heard of: piping water in from other states, in from the mountains, building new reservoirs, salt water refineries, and, or course, continuing to drain the Apalachicola, via the Chattahoochee (lot of vowels there).
This is all something to consider when decided where and how to live. Water is a must and, again, it must come from somewhere.
The wise Nine shall surely tell us all the business…
Now, on an even more remote, cold December morning, I had trekked across the Bay on a different, yet somewhat related mission. I and my good Brother-in-Law needed oysters. Appropriately fueled, we arrived in East Point for procurement.
We entered a dockside oyster house. Therein a heated discussion unfolded. One party held aloft a shotgun. Why such a tool was needed given the circumstances escaped us, even as we escaped via the front door. I suppose oysters, unhappy at their capture, may become rowdy. Maybe it was the water war. I’m not sure. But, that is a story for another day.
In Grutter v. Bolliger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), the Supreme Court somehow upheld the continuing discrimination of affirmative action in higher education. In that particular case, it directly regarded law school admission at the University of Michigan. White students, like Barbara Grutter, were (are) systematically denied opportunities based on the color of their skin despite having superior test scores, grades, and IQs.
Sandra Day O’Connor, in delivering the majority opinion, wrote: “The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” Grutter, at 310.
It’s only been 14 years but that is close enough, long enough (too long really). The Trump Administration is ready to direct the DOJ to uphold the honest principles that Justice Thomas urged in his Grutter dissent:
I therefore can understand the imposition of a 25-year time limit only as a holding that the deference the Court pays to the Law School’s educational judgments and refusal to change its admissions policies will itself expire. At that point these policies will clearly have failed to “‘eliminate the [perceived] need for any racial or ethnic'” discrimination because the academic credentials gap will still be there. [citation omitted] The Court defines this time limit in terms of narrow tailoring, [internal citation omitted] but I believe this arises from its refusal to define rigorously the broad state interest vindicated today. [internal citation omitted]. With these observations, I join the last sentence of Part III of the opinion of the Court.
For the immediate future, however, the majority has placed its imprimatur on a practice that can only weaken the principle of equality embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Equal Protection Clause. “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 527, 559, […] (1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting). It has been nearly 140 years since Frederick Douglass asked the intellectual ancestors of the Law School to “[d]o nothing with us!” and the Nation adopted the Fourteenth Amendment. Now we must wait another 25 years to see this principle of equality vindicated. I therefore respectfully dissent from the remainder of the Court’s opinion and the judgment.
The time is now. The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division will begin pursuing schools engaging in this hideous practice.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants, according to a document obtained by The New York Times.
The document, an internal announcement to the civil rights division, seeks current lawyers interested in working for a new project on “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.”
The announcement suggests that the project will be run out of the division’s front office, where the Trump administration’s political appointees work, rather than its Educational Opportunities Section, which is run by career civil servants and normally handles work involving schools and universities.
The document does not explicitly identify whom the Justice Department considers at risk of discrimination because of affirmative action admissions policies. But the phrasing it uses, “intentional race-based discrimination,” cuts to the heart of programs designed to bring more minority students to university campuses.
Supporters and critics of the project said it was clearly targeting admissions programs that can give members of generally disadvantaged groups, like black and Latino students, an edge over other applicants with comparable or higher test scores.
The project is another sign that the civil rights division is taking on a conservative tilt under President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. It follows other changes in Justice Department policy on voting rights, gay rights and police reforms.
Roger Clegg, a former top official in the civil rights division during the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration who is now the president of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, called the project a “welcome” and “long overdue” development as the United States becomes increasingly multiracial.
“The civil rights laws were deliberately written to protect everyone from discrimination, and it is frequently the case that not only are whites discriminated against now, but frequently Asian-Americans are as well,” he said.
I once brushed off the possible chance to work for the DOJ. This is one of the few times I wish I had gone through and was still there. I’d volunteer in a heartbeat.