DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,091
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jun 21, 2024 10:42:06 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,091
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jun 21, 2024 12:00:51 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,091
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jun 21, 2024 12:09:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bicentennial on Jun 21, 2024 13:10:22 GMT -5
Down to 15 cases. Not sure what it means that Justice Alito has not been at the Supreme Court building for the past two days. Currently the only date still scheduled to release opinions is next Wednesday.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,091
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jun 21, 2024 22:24:04 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,091
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jun 21, 2024 22:43:55 GMT -5
|
|
hoyajinx
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,585
|
Post by hoyajinx on Jun 22, 2024 4:23:25 GMT -5
This is a perfect example of the absolute farce that is Thomas’s version of originalism. Originalism is whatever Thomas wants it to be to suit the needs of his desired outcome. Applying his logic in this case in broader sense means that the framers were only referring to firearms that existed at the adoption of the Constitution. He should rule in every single case that the right to bear arms only applies to flintlock pistols, front loading muskets, etc.and extends to no other firearms invented thereafter. Odd that he doesn’t take that into account when making his “originalist” interpretations of gun laws. It’s so painfully obvious that he does whatever he wants and pretends it’s “originalism”, logic be damned.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,091
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jun 23, 2024 15:22:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bicentennial on Jun 24, 2024 14:52:24 GMT -5
So not surprising given the number of cases left, the Supreme Court announced decision days for Thursday and Friday this week in addition to Wednesday which was also previously scheduled as a decision day. I count 15 cases still to be decided.
|
|
|
Post by bicentennial on Jun 24, 2024 15:02:15 GMT -5
Looking back over the last ten years, in 2020 during the height of the pandemic the last decision was left to July 9th.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,672
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jun 24, 2024 15:50:25 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,180
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 25, 2024 20:18:46 GMT -5
The Supreme Court’s gun-rights decision last week came to the right result, but for the wrong reasons. On June 21, the Court ruled that the historical record supported a federal law barring those under restraining orders in domestic-violence cases from possessing guns. The decision, United States v. Rahimi, was 8–1, with Justice Clarence Thomas the lone dissenter. What the Court didn’t say, but should have, is that the federal law is constitutional because the government has a compelling interest—a legal standard that allows the government to abridge certain fundamental rights—in saving the lives of victims of domestic violence. Instead, the Court justified its result under an “originalist” approach to the Second Amendment. Originalism is the view that the meaning of a constitutional provision is fixed when it is adopted and can be changed only by constitutional amendment. Many of the separate opinions in the case—including by Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett (all in concurrences), and Thomas (in a dissent)—focused on how to correctly apply originalism. In doing so, they revealed the fatal flaws of originalism as a way of interpreting the Constitution: If judges are bound by the understandings of 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, they’ll come to absurd conclusions; if they can look to history for merely rough approximations, then they can justify whatever result they want. www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/06/failure-originalism-supreme-court/678783/
|
|
|
Post by bicentennial on Jun 26, 2024 10:06:03 GMT -5
So two opinions today. The one not being spoken about in the press makes it harder to prove bribery of a state or local official since the Supreme Court limits the law to bribery paid before an act, not a gratuity which is paid after the official acts. 6 to 3 with all democrat appointed justices voting against this interpretation of the law.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,180
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 26, 2024 10:29:59 GMT -5
So two opinions today. The one not being spoken about in the press makes it harder to prove bribery of a state or local official since the Supreme Court limits the law to bribery paid before an act, not a gratuity which is paid after the official acts. 6 to 3 with all democrat appointed justices voting against this interpretation of the law. Make America Corrupt Again. It stopped with SCOTUS reversal in McDonell v United States in which SCOTUS reversed the Gov of VA's conviction. Essentially, pay for play is now legal. GOVT OFFICIAL: If you pay me $100,000, I will meet with you and/or your client regarding a pending regulatory matter to hear your views. LOBBYIST: Who do I make the check out to? The federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, makes it a crime for a public official to “receive or accept anything of value” in exchange for being “influenced in the performance of any official act.” An "official act" is a decision or action on a "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy"; that question or matter must involve a formal exercise of governmental power, and must also be something specific and focused that is "pending" or "may by law be brought" before a public official. To qualify as an "official act," the public official must make a decision to take an action on that question or matter, or agree to do so. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event -- without more -- does not fit that definition of "official act." Because jury instructions in the case of former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell were erroneous, and those errors are not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, McDonnell's convictions are vacated. www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mcdonnell-v-united-states/
|
|
Massholya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,014
|
Post by Massholya on Jun 26, 2024 11:48:07 GMT -5
So two opinions today. The one not being spoken about in the press makes it harder to prove bribery of a state or local official since the Supreme Court limits the law to bribery paid before an act, not a gratuity which is paid after the official acts. 6 to 3 with all democrat appointed justices voting against this interpretation of the law. Make America Corrupt Again. It stopped with SCOTUS reversal in McDonell v United States in which SCOTUS reversed the Gov of VA's conviction. Essentially, pay for play is now legal. GOVT OFFICIAL: If you pay me $100,000, I will meet with you and/or your client regarding a pending regulatory matter to hear your views. LOBBYIST: Who do I make the check out to? The federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, makes it a crime for a public official to “receive or accept anything of value” in exchange for being “influenced in the performance of any official act.” An "official act" is a decision or action on a "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy"; that question or matter must involve a formal exercise of governmental power, and must also be something specific and focused that is "pending" or "may by law be brought" before a public official. To qualify as an "official act," the public official must make a decision to take an action on that question or matter, or agree to do so. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event -- without more -- does not fit that definition of "official act." Because jury instructions in the case of former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell were erroneous, and those errors are not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, McDonnell's convictions are vacated. www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mcdonnell-v-united-states/Make America Russia.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,180
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 26, 2024 14:16:33 GMT -5
Another SCOTUS screwup by posting an unformatted per curiam decision in Idaho v. United States holding that certiorari was improvidently granted. Essentially, the injunction, which allowed Idaho to enforce its restrictive statute regarding emergency abortions, is lifted, and federal law is supreme which allows emergency abortions. SCOTUS had granted Idaho cert. before judgment (i.e., bypassing 9th Circuit review) and going straight to SCOTUS -- incidentally, the same procedural step that SCOTUS denied to the Special Counsel in the J6 case against Demented Donnie. It is not a decision on the merits and it remains to be seen what the final per curiam decision holds. Supreme Court would allow emergency abortions in Idaho, Bloomberg reports www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/26/supreme-court-emergency-abortions-idaho-decision/
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,091
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jun 26, 2024 16:23:29 GMT -5
The we can get away with anything arrogance of this court is simply astonishing.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,091
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jun 27, 2024 4:31:56 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,091
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jun 27, 2024 15:21:37 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,091
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jun 28, 2024 9:39:57 GMT -5
Bought & Sold.
|
|