Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Tonight: Justice! and a Little More Justice!

22 Friday Feb 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Last fall I mentioned a case before the Nine, dealing with excessive fines and the waning Bill of Rights. They must have read that as they voted unanimously to uphold a shred of liberty.

The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday that the Excessive Fines Clause in the 8th Amendment applies to state and local governments.

Announced in an opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on her second day back on the bench following a December cancer surgery, the ruling limits states’ abilities to seize property and impose fines deemed excessive on citizens who break the law.

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” wrote Ginsburg, as the court sided with Tyson Timbs of Marion Indiana, whose $42,000 Land Rover SUV was seized by the state following a guilty plea for selling $385 worth of heroin to an undercover detective.

The larger development may be Ginsburg writing “Anglo-American history.” Easy, sister – don’t go overboard and allude to The Posterity at a time like this.

And, what a great time this week has been. Special people, nationwide, are getting a little justice – Juicy Smallest (whatever), R. (“Rape?”) Kelly, and maybe even Jeff Epstein.

Federal prosecutors, under former Miami U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, broke the law when they concealed a plea agreement from more than 30 underage victims who had been sexually abused by wealthy New York hedge fund manager Jeffrey Epstein, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

While the decision marks a victory for crime victims, the federal judge, Kenneth A. Marra, stopped short of overturning Epstein’s plea deal, or issuing an order resolving the case. He instead gave federal prosecutors 15 days to confer with Epstein’s victims and their attorneys to come up with a settlement. The victims did not seek money or damages as part of the suit.

It’s not clear whether the victims, now in their late 20s and early 30s, can, as part of the settlement, demand that the government prosecute Epstein. But others are calling on the Justice Department to take a new look at the case in the wake of the judge’s ruling.

“As a legal matter, the non-prosecution agreement entered into by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida does not bind other U.S. Attorneys in other districts. They are free, if they conclude it is appropriate to do so, to bring criminal actions against Mr. Epstein and his co-conspirators,’’ said lawyer David Boies, representing two of Epstein’s victims who claim they were trafficked by Epstein in New York and other areas of the country.

No need to wait on a judicial decision from any District. We’re under a declared State of Emergency. Light Epstein, Acosta, and the other enemies up, Mr. Trump. Let the good times (and heads) roll.

The Nine and Eugenics

09 Saturday Feb 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, ,

More on my reasoning, from TPC this week, that the Supreme Court is not a threat to Roe: John Roberts didn’t just now join with the liberals.

A divided Supreme Court stopped Louisiana from enforcing new regulations on abortion clinics in a test of the conservative court’s views on abortion rights.

The justices said by a 5-4 vote late Thursday that they will not allow the state to put into effect a law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the court’s four liberals in putting a hold on the law, pending a full review of the case.

President Trump’s two Supreme Court appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, were among the four conservative members of the court who would have allowed the law to take effect.

Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion in which he said the court’s action was premature because the state had made clear it would allow abortion providers an additional 45 days to obtain admitting privileges before it started enforcing the law.

Dear Baton Rouge, Mr. Roberts has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.

And, Allen Stevo has more on the connections between Coonman, the KKK, and Rehashed Nazi Eugenics, Inc.

Virtually anyone who has done an in depth and wide survey of the most influential American political writing of the past century, knows the strong encouragement that Eastern seaboard intellectuals have shown for both eugenics and abortion, that eugenics and abortion are both firmly at the root of the vast social engineering projects that stem from the progressive worldview, and which today get recycled and deceptively dressed up for the poorly read with well tested talking points. Of course eugenics isn’t openly paraded around because it is no longer a popular view, but eugenics remain at the intellectual foundation of progressivism.

The 21st century talking points around abortion being a civil right may sound wonderful and loving, the intellectual root of the ideas are horrifying.

Margaret Sanger herself, founder of Planned Parenthood didn’t don a faux Klan outfit in some goofy yearbook photo. Instead, according to her autobiography she spoke to the “women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan at Silver Lake, New Jersey,” likely about the virtues of birth control for whitening and purifying the American population, as was an important topic for her. It was such an important topic that she started her “Negro Project” in 1939 to get black Americans onboard with their own population control, just as German racists were ramping up population control initiatives across the Atlantic. Such an important topic that in 1922, she placed notorious racist writer and Klansman Lothrop Stoddard on the founding six member board of directors for the birth control organization that later became known as Planned Parenthood.

Judge K Sides With Court Liberals, Abortion Mafia; Loser States Keep Losing

13 Thursday Dec 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

This ruling (nonruling, really) is though not necessarily an endorsement of the rehashed Nazi eugenics part of the mafia’s work. The case involved looted money being spent on other “healthcare.” Louisianna and Kansas objected in vain.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected appeals by Louisiana and Kansas seeking to end their public funding to women’s healthcare and abortion provider Planned Parenthood through the Medicaid program, with President Donald Trump’s appointee Brett Kavanaugh among the justices who rebuffed the states.

The justices left intact lower court rulings that prevented Louisiana and Kansas from stripping government healthcare funding from local Planned Parenthood affiliates. The case was one of a number of disputes working their way up to the Supreme Court over the legality of state-imposed restrictions involving abortion.

Three conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch – dissented from the decision by the nine-member conservative-majority court, saying it should have heard the appeals by the states.

At least four justices must vote to grant review for the court to hear an appeal. Along with the four liberal justices, Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts – the court’s two other conservative justices – opposed taking up the matter.

Yet another reason why, unlike the factory lawyers of Amerika, I pay no attention to the Supreme Court – or to governments generally. It’s pointless.

I don’t fault Kavanaugh or Cold Water Roberts, here. The blame rests on the two bitching States, as, over 100 years ago, both of them gleefully voted to give away their citizens’ money and their own Senatorial political power to Washington. Kind of serves them right.

Supreme Court Offers Glimmer of Eighth Amendment Hope

29 Thursday Nov 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Just the slightest glimmer. I’m not as excited as the author of this story about a wronged dope dealer:

The Supreme Court left little doubt Wednesday that it would rule that the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states, an outcome that could help an Indiana man recover the $40,000 Land Rover police seized when they arrested him for selling about $400 worth of heroin.

A decision in favor of 37-year-old Tyson Timbs, of Marion, Indiana, also could buttress efforts to limit the confiscation by local law enforcement of property belonging to someone suspected of a crime. Police and prosecutors often keep the proceeds.

Timbs was on hand at the high court for arguments that were largely a one-sided affair in which the main question appeared to be how broadly the state would lose.

The court has formally held that most of the Bill of Rights applies to states as well as the federal government, but it has not done so on the Eighth Amendment’s excessive-fines ban.

Justice Neil Gorsuch was incredulous that Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher was urging the justices to rule that states should not be held to the same standard.

“Here we are in 2018 still litigating incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Really? Come on, general,” Gorsuch said to Fisher, using the term for holding that constitutional provisions apply to the states.

Justice Stephen Breyer said under Fisher’s reading police could take the car of a driver caught going 5 mph (8 kph) above the speed limit.

“Anyone who speeds has to forfeit the Bugatti, Mercedes or special Ferrari, or even jalopy,” Breyer said.

Fisher agreed.

It was unclear whether the justices also would rule to give Timbs his Land Rover back or allow Indiana courts to decide that issue. Some justices seemed willing to take that additional step.

“If we look at these forfeitures that are occurring today … many of them are grossly disproportionate to the crimes being charged,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

Yes, looking at all forfeitures occurring today, there is a huge problem. Thank you, wise Latina woman. ‘Cold Water’ Roberts was along with … cold water though, in a way, he might be right. But the problems are so many with these issues.

First, forget the anti-incorporation argument, libertarians. It’s as settled a matter as the fate of the nation. They will formally allow application of the 8th, through the 14th, to and against the States.

Second, as always, hard cases make bad law. No one likes a dope dealer. And there are 10,000 more noble poster children available. On the other hand, why is selling dope a crime (okay to be libertarian, here, still)?

Third, while the excessive fines per se or construed are an important issue in prosecuted criminal cases, the worse issue is the outright theft via “civil” forfeiture. They literally take your stuff – without even a solid accusation of wrongdoing – and keep it barring the jumping of many flaming hoops. The States, most of them, make a mint of this theft, the only criminal activity being committed by the government.

Fourth, it’s not just the States. Uncle Sucker is as guilty as any. Few raise any alarm and many (don’t let the door hit you, Sessions) rabidly defend the practice.

However the Court rules in Timbs, it will be some little good. Unfortunately, a lot of good is needed. We may never fully see it.

Take what you can get, freedom lovers. Take a hike, government thieves.

From TPC – They Can’t Handle the Truth (Because It Burns Them Like Fire)

20 Thursday Sep 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Things are heating up in the District of Corruption. My offbeat guest last week offered some interesting insight into life and times in the Swamp – along with a glimpse inside the mind of a schizophrenic. One thing really stood out as a panicked admission: “The deep state is in trouble.” Yeah. More than she, you, or they believe.
Unless you’ve been under a television soaking up the NCAA/NFL opiates, you know that the Senate is currently in the process of vetting Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh will be confirmed here shortly. And he will be (should be) as good a Justice as one could expect at such a late hour.
…

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE AT TPC

Screenshot 2018-09-20 at 7.56.06 PM
TPC (1)

Naming the Nine

28 Tuesday Aug 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

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!

Religious Bigotry in America

03 Tuesday Jul 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

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.

2033.

amy-barrett-faith-attack

Still not sure about the Fed-Soc.

Trump Travel Ban Upheld in Full

26 Tuesday Jun 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

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.

THE FULL OPINION

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
First Amendment.

…

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.

Screenshot 2018-06-26 at 12.30.41 PM

They Really Do Need a Stinking Warrant – Good News for the Fourth Amendment

22 Friday Jun 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

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).

THE WHOLE OPINION

download (1)

cnet.com.

Good news to start the hot weekend.

More good news: TPC is now available in print!

35924335_10217273186247787_1803992405846786048_n

TPC/MBM/Facebook.

A Religious Freedom Ruling: More of an Essay than a Masterpiece

04 Monday Jun 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

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,

READ THE OPINION

 

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.