Adios AA

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Neither.

Still waiting for an explanation how ruling on a case that didn’t exist isn’t “activist” or “legislative”

I’ll hang up and wait for my answer

[Pakuni]

I hope we can at least all agree that the Roberts Court is an utter sh*tshow.
Best (worst) part about it is he knows it he's too ineffectual to do a thing about it.

[forgetful]

The Supreme Court has agreed to take on a case concerning whether people convicted of domestic violence can own guns.
What could go wrong?

Well, since this thread is off the rails anyways, I might as well comment on this case, as it will be interesting to see what the SC does.

If they follow their own precedent in Bruen, then they would have to decide that people convicted of domestic violence can own guns.

Their precedent is that gun laws forbidding gun ownership can only exist if similar restrictions were in place at the time of our nations founding. Pretty sure that domestic violence was not prohibitive of gun ownership back then.

So they are presented with a conundrum. Follow their own recent precedent and say laws cannot be enacted to stop dangerous convicted violent individuals from owning guns, or further prove that they are a mockery of the law.

[Pakuni]

Well, since this thread is off the rails anyways, I might as well comment on this case, as it will be interesting to see what the SC does.

If they follow their own precedent in Bruen, then they would have to decide that people convicted of domestic violence can own guns.

Their precedent is that gun laws forbidding gun ownership can only exist if similar restrictions were in place at the time of our nations founding. Pretty sure that domestic violence was not prohibitive of gun ownership back then.

So they are presented with a conundrum. Follow their own recent precedent and say laws cannot be enacted to stop dangerous convicted violent individuals from owning guns, or further prove that they are a mockery of the law.

Regarding Bruen, it's less about what was in place at the founding,, but rather what the majority labeled the "history and tradition" of gun laws. It's ridiculously vague - probably intentionally so - and has spawned equally ridiculous lower court decisions (like one saying it's OK to remove gun serial numbers).
That said, there is a long history in this country of the government keeping weapons out of the hands of people deemed dangerous.
So, if this were a normal court, there would be hope. But of course, this isn't a normal court..It's evident this court holds little regard for precedent and simply throws sh*t up against the wall to get its preferred outcome (as in Bruen).

[Uncle Rico]

Regarding Bruen, it's less about what was in place at the founding,, but rather what the majority labeled the "history and tradition" of gun laws. It's ridiculously vague - probably intentionally so - and has spawned equally ridiculous lower court decisions (like one saying it's OK to remove gun serial numbers).
That said, there is a long history in this country of the government keeping weapons out of the hands of people deemed dangerous.
So, if this were a normal court, there would be hope. But of course, this isn't a normal court..It's evident this court holds little regard for precedent and simply throws sh*t up against the wall to get its preferred outcome (as in Bruen).

Do we know what perks the NRA and gun lobby have given Thomas and Alioto?  Trips?  Jobs for family members?  You know, bribes

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Neither.

Oh. So you just typed some pablum without understanding what you were saying.  Not surprising.

[MU82]

Do we know what perks the NRA and gun lobby have given Thomas and Alioto?  Trips?  Jobs for family members?  You know, bribes

SCOTUS goes back centuries, and I'm no historian, so I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there have been more corrupt and compromised justices than these two. But they certainly are the worst in that regard that I know of -- especially Thomas, who has let his "justice" be bought and sold, and who refuses to recuse himself even in scenarios that involve his bat-shyte crazy wife and his friends.

[forgetful]

Regarding Bruen, it's less about what was in place at the founding,, but rather what the majority labeled the "history and tradition" of gun laws. It's ridiculously vague - probably intentionally so - and has spawned equally ridiculous lower court decisions (like one saying it's OK to remove gun serial numbers).
That said, there is a long history in this country of the government keeping weapons out of the hands of people deemed dangerous.
So, if this were a normal court, there would be hope. But of course, this isn't a normal court..It's evident this court holds little regard for precedent and simply throws sh*t up against the wall to get its preferred outcome (as in Bruen).

Thanks for the professional deeper dive into the case. I largely only knew things I read from news articles. Particularly a recent case in Mississippi, where a judge dismissed a case against a convicted felon who possessed a gun, because according to the Judge's opinion, Bruen says such a law is unconstitutional.

[jesmu84]

SCOTUS goes back centuries, and I'm no historian, so I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there have been more corrupt and compromised justices than these two. But they certainly are the worst in that regard that I know of -- especially Thomas, who has let his "justice" be bought and sold, and who refuses to recuse himself even in scenarios that involve his bat-shyte crazy wife and his friends.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Merrick Garland was a love note from Mitch McConnell reminding the Democrats of how they handled Robert Bork.

If you're suggesting McConnel used this as a "justification" for Garland, sure maybe.

If you are suggesting that those two situations are remotely similar, that's BS

[SoCalEagle]

If you're suggesting McConnel used this as a "justification" for Garland, sure maybe.

If you are suggesting that those two situations are remotely similar, that's BS

Don't forget they stole the Barrett pick, too.  Bum rushed her through in record time.  That was Biden's pick, but they rushed things and frankly didn't allow for ample time to vet her qualifications.  If they played by their own rules (I know that's laughable) then they would have let the next duly elected president choose this pick because "elections matter." 

I hate to say it because I am supportive of institutions that help our country run smoothly, but if one can't see that the legitimacy of this court is at risk of crumbling, then they're not paying attention. 

Turn those two stolen picks around and we have a balanced court. 

[Lennys Tap]

Oh. So you just typed some pablum without understanding what you were saying.  Not surprising.

Nope. Wrong again. You’re on a roll.

[4everwarriors]

Blame RBG. She fooked y'all over, aina?

[Uncle Rico]

Blame RBG. She fooked y'all over, aina?

America, she fooked over.  At least she wasn’t a crook like Alioto and Thomas

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Better to have a cogent ruling by the majority than have to live with the amateur dissents written by people who wish to ignore the constitution as written. Sotomayer’s
dissent circled around argued against her point
This anti SOTUS stuff is a diversion to take heat off
“The Big Guy”

[Pakuni]

Better to have a cogent ruling by the majority than have to live with the amateur dissents written by people who wish to ignore the constitution as written. Sotomayer’s
dissent circled around argued against her point
This anti SOTUS stuff is a diversion to take heat off
“The Big Guy”

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Oh. So you just typed some pablum without understanding what you were saying.  Not surprising.

And they still won’t answer my question

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

And they still won’t answer my question

Because they just parrot talking points.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Because they just parrot talking points.

"They"

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

"They"

Yep.

[Uncle Rico]

59 years ago today:

https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/july-2-1964-remarks-upon-signing-civil-rights-bill

[MUBurrow]

We love courts who rescind legislation previously enacted unconstitutionally by the court and return the decision making to where the constitution intended it - the legislature. And when the executive branch usurps the legislature to pass legislation we love when the court deems it what it is - unconstitutional.

Lenny - thanks for posting this.  We can fight about the political merits of the decisions this week all day long, but its way harder to say "I want/like this" than "This sucks because." 

My two cents is that Roberts' legal philosophy has an enormous blind spot - he truly does not believe conservative judicial activism is a thing.  When you look at his commentaries on the court over the years, it becomes clear he belives that's an oxymoron and that if you are politically conservative, your opinions can't also be activist.  It started with his "balls and strikes" truism during his confirmation hearings (great as something a judge's grandma crosstitches and then frames, but unworkable when you consider the requirements for SCOTUS to grant cert in the first place) and is reinforced in his unchracteristically whiny allegation in Nebraska that when a liberal dissent accuses conservatives of judicial activism it is suddenly "disparagement" that "misleads the public and is is harmful to the court and the country." 

I think just about anyone would agree that having a conservative bent does not insulate a jurist from interpreting questions of law in a manner that introduces new concepts, canons of construction, or even attributes new motivations to the legislative and executive branches who enacted past legislation (ahem major questions doctrine).  But by starting from the notion that conservatives have a get out of jail free card on judicial activism, Roberts has made it basically impossible for his court legacy to be the moderate image he intended.  His opinions outline that as long as a holding is conservative and has roots in the past, the process of getting there is less important.  And imo that's the exact opposite of judicial restraint.

[jficke13]

Thought this thread was going to be about Alan Arkin.

[Lennys Tap]

Lenny - thanks for posting this.  We can fight about the political merits of the decisions this week all day long, but its way harder to say "I want/like this" than "This sucks because." 

My two cents is that Roberts' legal philosophy has an enormous blind spot - he truly does not believe conservative judicial activism is a thing.  When you look at his commentaries on the court over the years, it becomes clear he belives that's an oxymoron and that if you are politically conservative, your opinions can't also be activist.  It started with his "balls and strikes" truism during his confirmation hearings (great as something a judge's grandma crosstitches and then frames, but unworkable when you consider the requirements for SCOTUS to grant cert in the first place) and is reinforced in his unchracteristically whiny allegation in Nebraska that when a liberal dissent accuses conservatives of judicial activism it is suddenly "disparagement" that "misleads the public and is is harmful to the court and the country." 

I think just about anyone would agree that having a conservative bent does not insulate a jurist from interpreting questions of law in a manner that introduces new concepts, canons of construction, or even attributes new motivations to the legislative and executive branches who enacted past legislation (ahem major questions doctrine).  But by starting from the notion that conservatives have a get out of jail free card on judicial activism, Roberts has made it basically impossible for his court legacy to be the moderate image he intended.  His opinions outline that as long as a holding is conservative and has roots in the past, the process of getting there is less important.  And imo that's the exact opposite of judicial restraint.

Thoughtful and thought provoking, Burrow. Agree or disagree I always appreciate your posts.

[MU82]

Here's something long overdue. Now we'll see what, if anything, comes of it ...

WASHINGTON (AP) — A civil rights group is challenging legacy admissions at Harvard University, saying the practice discriminates against students of color by giving an unfair boost to the mostly white children of alumni.

https://apnews.com/article/legacy-admissions-affirmative-action-colleges-4a4e1191274e91e695e0631ff5156875

The practice of giving priority to the children of alumni has faced growing pushback in the wake of last week’s Supreme Court’s decision ending affirmative action in higher education. The NAACP added its weight behind the effort on Monday, asking more than 1,500 colleges and universities to even the playing field in admissions, including by ending legacy admissions.

The civil rights complaint was filed Monday by Lawyers for Civil Rights, a nonprofit based in Boston, on behalf of Black and Latino community groups in New England, alleging that Harvard’s admissions system violates the Civil Rights Act.

“Why are we rewarding children for privileges and advantages accrued by prior generations?” said Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, the group’s executive director. “Your family’s last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process.”

Opponents say the practice is no longer defensible without affirmative action providing a counterbalance. The court’s ruling says colleges must ignore the race of applicants, activists point out, but schools can still give a boost to the children of alumni and donors.

The complaint, submitted with the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, draws on Harvard data that came to light amid the affirmative action case that landed before the Supreme Court. The records revealed that 70% of Harvard’s donor-related and legacy applicants are white, and being a legacy student makes an applicant roughly six times more likely to be admitted.

It draws attention to other colleges that have abandoned the practice amid questions about its fairness, including Amherst College and Johns Hopkins University.