SCOTUS Decisions

[RobDownSouth]

But it leaves it open for someone else to try to ban it.

This is the third time in 13 months that the Supremes have spanked the conservative activist 5th circuit appeals court.

Each reversal gets a bit more sharper in both tone and rhetoric.

This vote was 9-0 to reverse and the Supremes made it very clear that the original Federal Judge's decision should never have been heard, let alone reversed, by the Court of Appeals. The decision was the equivalent of a legal letter of reprimand.

The message is clear: Appeals courts do NOT have the right to find in favor of "hypothetical harm". That is the exclusive perk of the Supreme Court (see: potential gay wedding cakes).

 

[RobDownSouth]

But it leaves it open for someone else to try to ban it.

Yes it does. But who, pray tell, suffers "harm"?
A woman who takes the drug, aborts her fetus and then has second thoughts?

 

[domroger]

Yes it does. But who, pray tell, suffers "harm"?
A woman who takes the drug, aborts her fetus and then has second thoughts?

No idea,constitutional law is not my forte,but there will be another case brought that is not as weak as this one.
All I know is the Robert's court will twist the law to suit it's own agenda as confirmed by the bump stocks decision.
If I'm wrong I'll be happy,but I don't think I am.

 

[Rightguide]

Kavanaugh's dissenting opinion is crap. Basically it runs on about how the FedGov has been discriminating against Native American's for so long it's unthinkable to actually treat them fairly.

His performance as a SCOTUS justice makes me almost regret that he made it through the confirmation process.

Although I tend to agree but treaties have extended certain responsibilities to tribal governments and there must have been a misinterpretation of the law to bring the controversy to the SCOTUS in the first place, right? Guess I should read the decision in full.

 

[Rightguide]

No idea,constitutional law is not my forte,but there will be another case brought that is not as weak as this one.
All I know is the Robert's court will twist the law to suit it's own agenda as confirmed by the bump stocks decision.
If I'm wrong I'll be happy,but I don't think I am.

The Bump Stock case is simple. The ATF does not have the authority to expand the definition of what a machine gun is under the National Firearms Act beyond what Congress has said it is. It's really that simple. Congress writes the law the Executive Branch enforces the law.

 

[icanhelp1]

The Bump Stock case is simple. The ATF does not have the authority to expand the definition of what a machine gun is under the National Firearms Act beyond what Congress has said it is. It's really that simple. Congress writes the law the Executive Branch enforces the law.

It’s unfortunate the court has been put in an unfavorable role of *sweep up messes* created by a dysfunctional congressional body. Trump banning bump stock was more of the executive branch operating past their constitutional authority much like Biden forgiving student loans. Congress stood by not wanting to rock the boat. The courts come along and rule and everyone has a hissy fit. Put the blame on a lamé indecisive, irrelevant and dysfunctional congress.

 

[Rightguide]

It’s unfortunate the court has been put in an unfavorable role of *sweep up messes* created by a dysfunctional congressional body. Trump banning bump stock was more of the executive branch operating past their constitutional authority much like Biden forgiving student loans. Congress stood by not wanting to rock the boat. The courts come along and rule and everyone has a hissy fit. Put the blame on a lamé indecisive, irrelevant and dysfunctional congress.

I agree it is the lazy Congress who is at fault both in creating wishy-washy legal text and having no guts to enforce its constitutional authority.

 

[icanhelp1]

I agree it is the lazy Congress who is at fault both in creating wishy-washy legal text and having no guts to enforce its constitutional authority.

This partisan hatred and extreme party loyalty is ruining our country.

 

[Rightguide]

This partisan hatred and extreme party loyalty is ruining our country.

There is loyalty only to donors, not the country.

 

[jaF0]

Supreme Court upholds Trump-era tax law, skirts wealth tax question​

The high court’s ruling avoids potential major disruptions to the tax code.
by Kelsey Reichmann

Justices reject limits on malicious prosecution claims​

The Supreme Court ruled to make it easier to sue police officers for filing charges without probable cause.
by Kelsey Reichmann and Ryan Knappenberger

Texas councilwoman wins Supreme Court fight to sue for politically motivated arrest​

The justices' ruling rejects new hurdles for retaliation claims from arrests involving protected speech.
by Kelsey Reichmann

SCOTUS won’t restrict expert testimony in drug trafficking case​

The high court said a government expert was allowed to present testimony that a California woman likely knew she was transporting drugs across the border.
by Kelsey Reichmann

 

[jaF0]

Supreme Court allows ban on gun ownership for domestic abusers to stand​

The justices limited the scope of the high court’s landmark expansion of Second Amendment rights.
by Kelsey Reichmann

Married couple loses Supreme Court fight to appeal visa denial over gang tattoos​

The high court’s ruling favors the State Department’s national security concerns over the spousal interests of a U.S. citizen.
by Ryan Knappenberger and Kelsey Reichmann

Career criminal sentences require jury review, SCOTUS rules​

The high court gave juries more control over enhanced sentences for career criminals.
by Kelsey Reichmann

Feds can block Western water deal, Supreme Court says​

The high court ruled to block a water agreement Texas and New Mexico made without the federal government’s blessing.
by Kelsey Reichmann

Justices find substitute expert witness testimony admissible in Arizona drug case​

The high court said Arizona did not violate the confrontation clause when a witness presented testimonial evidence that was not his during a drug prosecution.
by Kelsey Reichmann and Ryan Knappenberger

 

[ll74]

Supreme Court allows ban on gun ownership for domestic abusers to stand​

The justices limited the scope of the high court’s landmark expansion of Second Amendment rights.
by Kelsey Reichmann

Married couple loses Supreme Court fight to appeal visa denial over gang tattoos​

The high court’s ruling favors the State Department’s national security concerns over the spousal interests of a U.S. citizen.
by Ryan Knappenberger and Kelsey Reichmann

Career criminal sentences require jury review, SCOTUS rules​

The high court gave juries more control over enhanced sentences for career criminals.
by Kelsey Reichmann

Feds can block Western water deal, Supreme Court says​

The high court ruled to block a water agreement Texas and New Mexico made without the federal government’s blessing.
by Kelsey Reichmann

Justices find substitute expert witness testimony admissible in Arizona drug case​

The high court said Arizona did not violate the confrontation clause when a witness presented testimonial evidence that was not his during a drug prosecution.
by Kelsey Reichmann and Ryan Knappenberger

Thanks for this thread.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law prohibiting people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns.

Led by Justice Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices found in the 8-1 ruling that individuals who pose a credible threat to physical safety can be temporarily disarmed without violating the Second Amendment.


Which is not as broad as some would have us believe. If your SO is sane and believes you a menace and gets papers, then coughing up your shit . . . I won't argue the point.

 

[jaF0]

Most state laws have generally been that way. Surrender them pending trail and if convicted, authorities retain them until released by the Court. 'Temporary' can be more or less open ended as long as the Court sees a potential threat.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Most state laws have generally been that way. Surrender them pending trail and if convicted, authorities retain them until released by the Court. 'Temporary' can be more or less open ended as long as the Court sees a potential threat.

Which based on what people have told me first-hand, I think the courts are in position to know. There needs to be something, I think, and this is as good as any and better than many.

 

[SmokingFap]

So I'll take the win and smile gleefully as I watch you fuckwits squirm in the realization that EVERYTHING you believe in starts to come crashing down.

Everything we believe in is going to come crashing down?

You're funny.

 

[SmokingFap]

Which based on what people have told me first-hand, I think the courts are in position to know. There needs to be something, I think, and this is as good as any and better than many.

That's a lot of words to essentially say nothing.

 

[HisArpy]

Most state laws have generally been that way. Surrender them pending trail and if convicted, authorities retain them until released by the Court. 'Temporary' can be more or less open ended as long as the Court sees a potential threat.

This concept is going to have to undergo a slight transformation. SCOTUS said that the temporary restriction can be imposed only AFTER the court deems the individual a public safety risk.

So the TRO and confiscation thing is going to have to change. Right now an accuser can get the TRO and the accused can be stripped of their property and rights without a hearing. The Rahimi decision changes that. Now the confiscation/surrender will have to wait until AFTER the hearing and a court determining if the accused should be limited in 2A Rights.

This should put a damper on potential abuse. Especially when combined with the decision in Chiaverini.

 

[jaF0]

This is another case where they really didn't decide anything.

https://www.courthousenews.com/married-couple-loses-supreme-court-visa-appeal-over-tattoos/


"Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in writing the court’s opinion, wrote that Muñoz’s argument failed because she could not prove that her asserted right to bring her spouse to the country was “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.”

“In fact, Congress’s longstanding regulation of spousal immigration — including through bars on admissibility — cuts the other way,” the Trump appointee wrote."

" “The Ninth Circuit got it wrong,” Barrett said, speaking from the bench on Friday. “This case boils down to who gets to decide, and the answer is the executive branch.”


The court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remanded the case back to federal court for further proceedings."


Not only not really deciding anything but seeming to support Authoritarianism.


But I'm not sure I agree with this either since one of the parties is not a Citizen.:


"Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent, on which fellow liberal justices Elena Kangan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, in which she opened with a quote from the landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage.

“The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition,” Sotomayor wrote, expressing concern over her colleagues’ seeming dilution of fundamental marriage rights. “The majority today chooses a broad holding on marriage over a narrow one on procedure.”"


But then we have the main issue:

"Later Muñoz would discover that her husband’s application was denied because of his tattoos. The government claims that Ascencio-Cordero’s tattoos are gang-related and suspected that he intended to enter the country for illicit activities."



Should people be excluded because of what they MIGHT do?

 

[SmokingFap]

This is another case where they really didn't decide anything.

https://www.courthousenews.com/married-couple-loses-supreme-court-visa-appeal-over-tattoos/


"Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in writing the court’s opinion, wrote that Muñoz’s argument failed because she could not prove that her asserted right to bring her spouse to the country was “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.”

“In fact, Congress’s longstanding regulation of spousal immigration — including through bars on admissibility — cuts the other way,” the Trump appointee wrote."

" “The Ninth Circuit got it wrong,” Barrett said, speaking from the bench on Friday. “This case boils down to who gets to decide, and the answer is the executive branch.”


The court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remanded the case back to federal court for further proceedings."


Not only not really deciding anything but seeming to support Authoritarianism.


But I'm not sure I agree with this either since one of the parties is not a Citizen.:


"Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent, on which fellow liberal justices Elena Kangan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, in which she opened with a quote from the landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage.

“The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition,” Sotomayor wrote, expressing concern over her colleagues’ seeming dilution of fundamental marriage rights. “The majority today chooses a broad holding on marriage over a narrow one on procedure.”"


But then we have the main issue:

"Later Muñoz would discover that her husband’s application was denied because of his tattoos. The government claims that Ascencio-Cordero’s tattoos are gang-related and suspected that he intended to enter the country for illicit activities."



Should people be excluded because of what they MIGHT do?

 

[HisArpy]

This is another case where they really didn't decide anything.

https://www.courthousenews.com/married-couple-loses-supreme-court-visa-appeal-over-tattoos/


"Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in writing the court’s opinion, wrote that Muñoz’s argument failed because she could not prove that her asserted right to bring her spouse to the country was “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.”

“In fact, Congress’s longstanding regulation of spousal immigration — including through bars on admissibility — cuts the other way,” the Trump appointee wrote."

" “The Ninth Circuit got it wrong,” Barrett said, speaking from the bench on Friday. “This case boils down to who gets to decide, and the answer is the executive branch.”


The court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remanded the case back to federal court for further proceedings."


Not only not really deciding anything but seeming to support Authoritarianism.


But I'm not sure I agree with this either since one of the parties is not a Citizen.:


"Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent, on which fellow liberal justices Elena Kangan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, in which she opened with a quote from the landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage.

“The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition,” Sotomayor wrote, expressing concern over her colleagues’ seeming dilution of fundamental marriage rights. “The majority today chooses a broad holding on marriage over a narrow one on procedure.”"


But then we have the main issue:

"Later Muñoz would discover that her husband’s application was denied because of his tattoos. The government claims that Ascencio-Cordero’s tattoos are gang-related and suspected that he intended to enter the country for illicit activities."



Should people be excluded because of what they MIGHT do?

Gang tattoos indicate support for illegal acts and behavior. They indicate a refusal to obey the law and be a peaceful/productive citizen.

Thus they are a statement of ill intent. An application for citizenship can be denied on that basis of that statement. Not because of that the applicant "might do" but because of what they have already done.

 

[Bray123]

Supreme Court allows ban on gun ownership for domestic abusers to stand​

The justices limited the scope of the high court’s landmark expansion of Second Amendment rights.
by Kelsey Reichmann

​

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/...rs-cant-own-guns-supreme-court-rules-00164412

The court ruled 8-1 that the ban does not violate the Second Amendment. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

Or, Crow-funded Clarence.

Roberts concluded that the law depriving alleged domestic abusers of the right to possess firearms is akin to “surety” and “affray” laws from the founding era that sought to control and sometimes ban use of guns by people considered dangerous.

Crow-funded Clarence replied,

"We reject the Government’s contention that Rahimi may be disarmed simply because he is not ‘responsible’” .

Irresponsible people should be allowed lethal weapons! Clarence said so!

 

[LLCox]

The Right has the SC by the balls right now. They have long term goals.

 

[jaF0]

Tick, tick, tick ......

 

[KeithD]

Tick, tick, tick ......

With the debate set for Thursday, the Court, now completely politicized, won't rule on anything related to Trump until at least Friday--unless they are going to give him complete immunity, in which case they will release their ruling on Thursday morning to win him the debate.