moochedit
I'm not feeding seagulls
Anyone with a "felony" conviction is banned from having a gun. Seen enough of those "cops on camera" shows to know that
Supreme Court Ruling time again
- Thread starter Yuwipi Woman
- Start date
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Agreed, the Trumpist criminals only understand one langauge - bullets, fists and jail cells. People who oppose them need to be prepared to do what is necessary to stamp out this terrorist movement once and for all.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
How long would it take you to obtain an illegal gun were you so minded?
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
Private gun sales are exempt from background checks. You'd probably only need to consult craig's list or find your nearest gun show for an off the books sale.
petee
no gods, no malarkey
wemakeyousoundb
hopefully not gimboid
nice gaping loophole right there then :/
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
He can't.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
It depends on who is buying and what they're buying. If they're a convicted felon, then it isn't legal. If they're buying full auto or a modified barrel, then its isn't legal. Mostly, it will be legal so there often isn't any need to do something illegal to get a gun. Just go buy one in a private sale. I've heard that a major way that Mexican drug cartels get their guns, is that they send straw-buyers to go buy a few here and there. Then, they send them south.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Trump seemed to govern by Executive Decree well enough.
petee
no gods, no malarkey
Yossarian
⏭️
Surprised to see that the court - with Clarence Thomas dissenting, of course - did the sane thing and upheld a law banning people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns
www.theguardian.com
US supreme court upholds ban on domestic abusers possessing guns
Ruling in US v Rahimi will leave in place legal protections against a major source of gun violence in the US
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Surprised to see that the court - with Clarence Thomas dissenting, of course - did the sane thing and upheld a law banning people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns
US supreme court upholds ban on domestic abusers possessing guns
Ruling in US v Rahimi will leave in place legal protections against a major source of gun violence in the US
Don’t be. This doesn’t make them moderate, just less insane (Uncle Thomas aside) than the loons on the fifth circuit. They’ve shifted the judicial Overton window so far to the right on gun rights and many other things.
petee
no gods, no malarkey
still, 8-1 is pretty good.
opinion here, the first 4 pages are a summary which make for not-uninteresting reading.
opinion here, the first 4 pages are a summary which make for not-uninteresting reading.
petee
no gods, no malarkey
good (by my lights) decision on coronavirus bullshittery
www.emptywheel.net
excellent blog that is, i have no hand in it i'm just giving it a disinterested thumbs-up.
e2a
Open Thread: SCOTUS Decisions, Wednesday Edition [UPDATE-1] - emptywheel
13 cases remain undecided; the next batch of decisions will be delivered by SCOTUS this morning. This is an open thread.
www.emptywheel.net
excellent blog that is, i have no hand in it i'm just giving it a disinterested thumbs-up.
e2a
Last edited:
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Here's a totally sensible supreme court ruling 
www.latimes.com
Supreme Court wipes out anti-corruption law that bars officials from taking gifts for past favors
The U.S. Supreme Court rules state and local officials may take gifts and payments for steering contracts to grateful patrons.
www.latimes.com
and a totally unrelated fact:
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
An accidently released SCOTUS decisionon whether its okay for women to be denied abortions necessary for their bodily integrity has been released. In a 6-3 decision the court has decided not to rule on the substantive legal issue in the case because it was "improvidently granted" by... erm them.
Weird right? I think its pretty obvious what's behind this. It's an election year and all the data shows that abortion restrictions are deeply unpopular with voters. The less deranged conservatives on the court don't want to jepodise the chances of their Republican patrons. It's not a victory for women though. As Justice Jackson notes in her partial dissent: "“Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay... While this court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires.”
Meanwhile the three crazies on the court - Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch - say (under the relevant federal statute) "yes, women can be denied abortions needed to avoid perminant injury and disability and loss of bodily organs".
news.bloomberglaw.com
Weird right? I think its pretty obvious what's behind this. It's an election year and all the data shows that abortion restrictions are deeply unpopular with voters. The less deranged conservatives on the court don't want to jepodise the chances of their Republican patrons. It's not a victory for women though. As Justice Jackson notes in her partial dissent: "“Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay... While this court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires.”
Meanwhile the three crazies on the court - Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch - say (under the relevant federal statute) "yes, women can be denied abortions needed to avoid perminant injury and disability and loss of bodily organs".
Supreme Court Poised to Allow Emergency Abortions in Idaho (3)
The US Supreme Court is poised to allow abortions in medical emergencies in Idaho, according to a copy of an opinion that was briefly posted on the court’s website.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Still no decision on the Trump immunity case even though Jack Smith asked them to hear the case six months ago. It's almost as if they're dragging their feet?
Yossarian
⏭️
An accidently released SCOTUS decisionon whether its okay for women to be denied abortions necessary for their bodily integrity has been released. In a 6-3 decision the court has decided not to rule on the substantive legal issue in the case because it was "improvidently granted" by... erm them.
Weird right? I think its pretty obvious what's behind this. It's an election year and all the data shows that abortion restrictions are deeply unpopular with voters. The less deranged conservatives on the court don't want to jepodise the chances of their Republican patrons. It's not a victory for women though. As Justice Jackson notes in her partial dissent: "“Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay... While this court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires.”
Meanwhile the three crazies on the court - Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch - say (under the relevant federal statute) "yes, women can be denied abortions needed to avoid perminant injury and disability and loss of bodily organs".
Supreme Court Poised to Allow Emergency Abortions in Idaho (3)
The US Supreme Court is poised to allow abortions in medical emergencies in Idaho, according to a copy of an opinion that was briefly posted on the court’s website.
Yeah, when the question is "should women having medical emergencies be forced to wait until they are literally on the brink of death before they can have a medically necessary abortion," the answer should be something a little more robust than "maybe not right now in this particular case only, but don't read too much into this decision."
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
damn, I wish I'd put it that well and succinctly!
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Good article here on how the conservatives on the court who overturned Roe v Wade are trying to position themselves as moderate in the run up to an election where abortion is a politically salient issue. They are not, and they didn't protect abortion rights in either of their recent decisions, they merely kicked the can down the road:
Loading…
www.jezebel.com
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
I find it very difficult to understand how three judges on the SC have a more negative opinion on necessity of certain medical treatment to save the life of a mother than the Catholic Church does.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Apparently today is the last day of the SCOTUS term, their last day to hand down the Trump immunity verdict. I wonder if they had any political motivations for delaying it so long?
This piece in the NYT does a great job contextualising just how long SCOTUS have taken to render a decision in this case compared to other cases. I post it in full for people who don't have access:
For those looking for the hidden hand of politics in what the Supreme Court does, there’s plenty of reason for suspicion on Donald Trump’s as-yet-undecided immunity case given its urgency. There are, of course, explanations that have nothing to do with politics for why a ruling still hasn’t been issued. But the reasons to think something is rotten at the court are impossible to ignore.
On Feb. 28, the justices agreed to hear Mr. Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution on charges that he plotted to subvert the 2020 election. The court scheduled oral arguments in the case for the end of April. That eight-week interval is much quicker than the ordinary Supreme Court briefing process, which usually extends for at least 10 weeks. But it’s considerably more drawn out than the schedule the court established earlier this year on a challenge from Colorado after that state took Mr.
Trump off its presidential primary ballot. The court agreed to hear arguments on the case a mere month after accepting it and issued its decision less than a month after the argument. Mr. Trump prevailed, 9-0.
Nearly two months have passed since the justices heard lawyers for the former president and for the special counsel’s office argue the immunity case. The court is dominated by conservatives nominated by Republican presidents. Every passing day further delays a potential trial on charges related to Mr. Trump’s efforts to remain in office after losing the 2020 election and his role in the events that led to the storming of the Capitol; indeed, at this point, even if the court rules that Mr. Trump has limited or no immunity, it is unlikely a verdict will be delivered before the election.
The immunity case is not the only big case hanging fire. Some two dozen remain undecided that were argued even before the April 25 oral argument over Mr. Trump’s immunity. A case on gun rights for domestic abusers under a restraining order was argued in November; cases involving the power of federal agencies and a multibillion-dollar settlement for opioid victims were heard in December and January; the court also has yet to decide whether upwind states must cut emissions that affect the air quality in downwind states. That case was argued in February.
The court is a busy place, though the justices are completing decisions at the second slowest rate since the 1946 term, according to a recent article in The Wall Street Journal. The court tries to wrap up its business for the term that began in October by the end of June. It’s not shocking that cases argued later in the term end up being decided later, especially because by the end of April, when the immunity case was heard, the court was still working to finish cases argued months earlier. April was also among the court’s busiest months: The justices heard 10 cases.
But these seemingly mundane, process explanations overlook some of the particulars in the immunity case. Mr. Trump’s lawyers put together a set of arguments that are so outlandish they shouldn’t take much time to dispatch. Among them is the upside-down claim that, because the Constitution specifies that an officer who is convicted in an impeachment proceeding may subsequently face a criminal trial, the Constitution actually requires an impeachment conviction before there is any criminal punishment.
That gets things backward: The Constitution confirms that impeachment is not a prerequisite to criminal prosecution. And yet Mr. Trump’s lawyers continued to take the untenable position, in response to questioning, that a president who orders the assassination of a political rival could not face criminal charges (absent impeachment by the House and conviction in the Senate).
It does not take weeks to explain why these arguments are wrong.
In 1974, the Watergate special prosecutor squared off against President Richard Nixon over his refusal to release Oval Office tape recordings of his conversations with aides. Nixon argued that he was immune from a subpoena seeking the recordings. Last year, Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, looked at how long that case took once it reached the Supreme Court on May 31 of that year. The justices gave the parties 21 days to file their briefs, and then 10 days to respond. Oral argument was held on July 8. Sixteen days later, on July 24, the court issued its 8-0 decision ordering Nixon to turn over the tapes. The chief justice, Warren Burger, who had been nominated to the court by Nixon, wrote the opinion. Total elapsed time: 54 days. Nixon subsequently resigned.
As of Tuesday, 110 days had passed since the court agreed to hear the Trump immunity case. And still no decision.
This court has lost the benefit of the doubt for myriad reasons, including its willingness to act quickly in cases that benefit Republican interests. In addition to the disqualification case, two and a half years ago, the court scheduled a challenge to the Biden administration’s test-or-vaccinate policy two weeks after the justices decided to hear it, and then issued a decision invalidating the policy less than one week later.
In a case in South Carolina decided by the court 6-3 in May, it was not speed but sloth that aided Republicans. The court allowed the state to continue using a 2021 congressional map that a lower court had found was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Both parties in the case had asked the court to rule by Jan. 1; when no decision was issued by mid-March, a district court panel ordered the contested map to be used in this fall’s election.
In the immunity case, the question before the court is this: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
In addressing that question, the court could follow a path well charted in other cases and rule narrowly. The justices need not resolve anything and everything related to presidential immunity. It would be enough to conclude that whatever the precise bounds of presidential immunity, it doesn’t extend to orchestrating a monthslong effort to overturn the valid results of a presidential election.
Even if presidents enjoy some immunity for official acts, plotting to remain in office while continuing to question the results of an election they clearly lost isn’t one of them.
This piece in the NYT does a great job contextualising just how long SCOTUS have taken to render a decision in this case compared to other cases. I post it in full for people who don't have access:
Something’s Rotten About the Justices Taking So Long on Trump’s Immunity Case
For those looking for the hidden hand of politics in what the Supreme Court does, there’s plenty of reason for suspicion on Donald Trump’s as-yet-undecided immunity case given its urgency. There are, of course, explanations that have nothing to do with politics for why a ruling still hasn’t been issued. But the reasons to think something is rotten at the court are impossible to ignore.
On Feb. 28, the justices agreed to hear Mr. Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution on charges that he plotted to subvert the 2020 election. The court scheduled oral arguments in the case for the end of April. That eight-week interval is much quicker than the ordinary Supreme Court briefing process, which usually extends for at least 10 weeks. But it’s considerably more drawn out than the schedule the court established earlier this year on a challenge from Colorado after that state took Mr.
Trump off its presidential primary ballot. The court agreed to hear arguments on the case a mere month after accepting it and issued its decision less than a month after the argument. Mr. Trump prevailed, 9-0.
Nearly two months have passed since the justices heard lawyers for the former president and for the special counsel’s office argue the immunity case. The court is dominated by conservatives nominated by Republican presidents. Every passing day further delays a potential trial on charges related to Mr. Trump’s efforts to remain in office after losing the 2020 election and his role in the events that led to the storming of the Capitol; indeed, at this point, even if the court rules that Mr. Trump has limited or no immunity, it is unlikely a verdict will be delivered before the election.
The immunity case is not the only big case hanging fire. Some two dozen remain undecided that were argued even before the April 25 oral argument over Mr. Trump’s immunity. A case on gun rights for domestic abusers under a restraining order was argued in November; cases involving the power of federal agencies and a multibillion-dollar settlement for opioid victims were heard in December and January; the court also has yet to decide whether upwind states must cut emissions that affect the air quality in downwind states. That case was argued in February.
The court is a busy place, though the justices are completing decisions at the second slowest rate since the 1946 term, according to a recent article in The Wall Street Journal. The court tries to wrap up its business for the term that began in October by the end of June. It’s not shocking that cases argued later in the term end up being decided later, especially because by the end of April, when the immunity case was heard, the court was still working to finish cases argued months earlier. April was also among the court’s busiest months: The justices heard 10 cases.
But these seemingly mundane, process explanations overlook some of the particulars in the immunity case. Mr. Trump’s lawyers put together a set of arguments that are so outlandish they shouldn’t take much time to dispatch. Among them is the upside-down claim that, because the Constitution specifies that an officer who is convicted in an impeachment proceeding may subsequently face a criminal trial, the Constitution actually requires an impeachment conviction before there is any criminal punishment.
That gets things backward: The Constitution confirms that impeachment is not a prerequisite to criminal prosecution. And yet Mr. Trump’s lawyers continued to take the untenable position, in response to questioning, that a president who orders the assassination of a political rival could not face criminal charges (absent impeachment by the House and conviction in the Senate).
It does not take weeks to explain why these arguments are wrong.
In 1974, the Watergate special prosecutor squared off against President Richard Nixon over his refusal to release Oval Office tape recordings of his conversations with aides. Nixon argued that he was immune from a subpoena seeking the recordings. Last year, Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, looked at how long that case took once it reached the Supreme Court on May 31 of that year. The justices gave the parties 21 days to file their briefs, and then 10 days to respond. Oral argument was held on July 8. Sixteen days later, on July 24, the court issued its 8-0 decision ordering Nixon to turn over the tapes. The chief justice, Warren Burger, who had been nominated to the court by Nixon, wrote the opinion. Total elapsed time: 54 days. Nixon subsequently resigned.
As of Tuesday, 110 days had passed since the court agreed to hear the Trump immunity case. And still no decision.
This court has lost the benefit of the doubt for myriad reasons, including its willingness to act quickly in cases that benefit Republican interests. In addition to the disqualification case, two and a half years ago, the court scheduled a challenge to the Biden administration’s test-or-vaccinate policy two weeks after the justices decided to hear it, and then issued a decision invalidating the policy less than one week later.
In a case in South Carolina decided by the court 6-3 in May, it was not speed but sloth that aided Republicans. The court allowed the state to continue using a 2021 congressional map that a lower court had found was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Both parties in the case had asked the court to rule by Jan. 1; when no decision was issued by mid-March, a district court panel ordered the contested map to be used in this fall’s election.
In the immunity case, the question before the court is this: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
In addressing that question, the court could follow a path well charted in other cases and rule narrowly. The justices need not resolve anything and everything related to presidential immunity. It would be enough to conclude that whatever the precise bounds of presidential immunity, it doesn’t extend to orchestrating a monthslong effort to overturn the valid results of a presidential election.
Even if presidents enjoy some immunity for official acts, plotting to remain in office while continuing to question the results of an election they clearly lost isn’t one of them.
Yossarian
⏭️
The court is on a roll today - first they kick homeless people in the teeth by upholding a city's ban on sleeping outside, then they throw out a 40-year-old decision that made it easier for the government to regulate the environment, public health, and workplace safety
Environmental, health advocacy groups, civil rights organizations, organized labor and Democrats on the national and state level had urged the court to leave the Chevron decision in place. Gun, e-cigarette, farm, timber and home-building groups were among the business groups supporting the fishermen. Conservative interests that also intervened in recent high court cases limiting regulation of air and water pollution backed the fishermen as well.
The fisherman sued to contest the 2020 regulation that would have authorized a fee that could have topped $700 a day, though no one ever had to pay it
apnews.com
Environmental, health advocacy groups, civil rights organizations, organized labor and Democrats on the national and state level had urged the court to leave the Chevron decision in place. Gun, e-cigarette, farm, timber and home-building groups were among the business groups supporting the fishermen. Conservative interests that also intervened in recent high court cases limiting regulation of air and water pollution backed the fishermen as well.
The fisherman sued to contest the 2020 regulation that would have authorized a fee that could have topped $700 a day, though no one ever had to pay it
The Supreme Court weakens federal regulators, overturning decades-old Chevron decision
The Supreme Court has upended a 40-year-old decision that made it easier for the federal government to regulate the environment, public health, workplace safety and consumer protections.
apnews.com
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
The court is on a roll today - first they kick homeless people in the teeth by upholding a city's ban on sleeping outside, then they throw out a 40-year-old decision that made it easier for the government to regulate the environment, public health, and workplace safety
Environmental, health advocacy groups, civil rights organizations, organized labor and Democrats on the national and state level had urged the court to leave the Chevron decision in place. Gun, e-cigarette, farm, timber and home-building groups were among the business groups supporting the fishermen. Conservative interests that also intervened in recent high court cases limiting regulation of air and water pollution backed the fishermen as well.
The fisherman sued to contest the 2020 regulation that would have authorized a fee that could have topped $700 a day, though no one ever had to pay it
The Supreme Court weakens federal regulators, overturning decades-old Chevron decision
The Supreme Court has upended a 40-year-old decision that made it easier for the federal government to regulate the environment, public health, workplace safety and consumer protections.
And this one:
US supreme court ruling could make it harder to prosecute January 6 rioters – and Trump
US supreme court ruling could make it harder to prosecute January 6 rioters – and Trump
Court rules prosecutors overstepped in bringing obstruction charges against Capitol rioters
And this one:
US supreme court ruling could make it harder to prosecute January 6 rioters – and Trump
US supreme court ruling could make it harder to prosecute January 6 rioters – and Trump
Court rules prosecutors overstepped in bringing obstruction charges against Capitol rioters
The real reason it's proving "hard to prosecute: the "January 6 rioters" is that a massive proportion of them were working for the FBI:
FBI lost count of how many paid informants were at Capitol on Jan. 6, and later performed audit to figure out exact number: ex-official
The FBI had so many paid informants at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, that they lost track of the number and had to perform an audit to determine how many “Confidential Human Sources” wer…
nypost.com
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
If you bother to read your article you'll see it doesn't support your claimThe real reason it's proving "hard to prosecute: the "January 6 rioters" is that a massive proportion of them were working for the FBI:
FBI lost count of how many paid informants were at Capitol on Jan. 6, and later performed audit to figure out exact number: ex-official
The FBI had so many paid informants at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, that they lost track of the number and had to perform an audit to determine how many “Confidential Human Sources” wer…
Yossarian
⏭️
Can't be that hard to prosecute, they've already secured more than a thousand convictions, with a few hundred more cases pending.
Doesn't look like they've filed the "obstruction of an official proceeding" charge in the most recent arrests:
Doesn't look like they've filed the "obstruction of an official proceeding" charge in the most recent arrests:
Similar threads
