Friday, June 30, 2023

THE SUPREME SUPREME COURT

UPDATE: In our continuing effort to stay on top of the most important news from the Big Apple 🍎, comes this startling report: 


Six unelected people, cloistered away from the public, with lifetime tenure and physical protection have in a space of a few days upended American Society. 

The Supreme Court just

1) Held that being of color in the US is no big deal. There are no disadvantages to being black or any other minority such that  a student's race should not be considered by colleges. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.  The opinion notes "with distinct approval" the formerly discredited comments of a notable sports tout that none of the Judges in the REGIB reading this (and most do) will know because their parents were in diapers when Jimmy the Greek Synder said this: 

The decision did all but say "some of our best friends are black...:

NB: Philosophically Rumpole agrees with the proposition that two wrongs do not make a right and considering race in college admissions has inherent philosophical problems. BUT we also note that racism still pervades US society on a scale that does not allow courts and legislatures to turn a blind eye and announced that they are "Shocked! Shocked that there is gambling    racism going on in these premises..." 

2) Held that Gay people have less rights than they might think they have. Businesses can discriminate against a customer on the basis of their sexual orientation. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

Again, Rumpole philosophically agrees a business has a right to have signs that say "We do not serve Jews, Judges, or Armenian people" because we believe in the sanctity of property rights.  But under that premise, are we prepared to return to a society separated by race?

And in that vein, the Court announced a willingness to reexamine Brown vs. Board of Education: "What's exactly wrong if people are separate but equal?  We have three separate but equal branches of government. Why can't we have separate but equal education? "  Thomas, J, concurring in the grant of Certiorari. 

The Court also announced a grant of Cert on the issue of whether a domestic violence restraining order constitutionally can prohibit someone from possessing a firearm. First, we must all agree what we need in this country is more guns in the hands of angry and unstable people. Second, since the framers were not DV PC and didn't spend a lot of time discussing domestic violence restraining orders, the court will most certainly rule that DV restraining orders cannot stop people from carrying firearms. 

We really mean this. Follow us on this quick legal journey (judges, ask a PD to help you out on the law)

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 213 L. Ed. 2d 387 (2022) Justice Thomas, writing on behalf of school gunmen everywhere, and the majority, wrote: 

We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's “unqualified command.”

Earlier this year, in US v. Rahimi, the 5th Circuit struck down the constitutionality of a law prohibiting possession of a firearm when Rahimi, a violent drug dealer, was served with a domestic violence restraining order. Citing the Bruen decision, the 5th Circuit Judges, reveling in legal etoufee wrote such gems as "our ancestors would have never accepted the law on domestic violence restraining orders..."  (because they f'ing beat their slaves Rumpole notes). 

So- unless the current crop of Judges on the supreme court uncover some discussions between Jefferson and Adams on DV restraining orders: 
Adams: "Tom, when are you going to stop beating your wife?"
Jefferson: "You should try keeping Abagail in order. She has a mouth that one..." 

the court is destined to place battered women more at risk, because lets face it, there's only so many schools a shooter can shoot up with an AR15 without turning his attention to taking pot shots at battered women, with Justices Amy Comey and Clarence "Big Man" Clemmons Thomas supplying the clips. 






11 comments:

  1. So why do Asian students have to be rejected for admitssion to eleit colleges for no reason other than the color of thier skin?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I haven't read the other opinions, but I have read the Harvard opinion. And you're wrong. You say that they held, in effect, "that being of color in the US is no big deal. There are no disadvantages to being black or any other minority such that a student's race should not be considered by colleges." They said no such thing. Instead, they said, correctly, that the 14th Amendment is colorblind and that if, as we all agree, discriminating against blacks and latinos is a violation of the 14th amendment, then the inverse (discriminating in favor of blacks and latinos) must also be unconstitutional - either way, its discrimination based on race.

    The Roberts opinion is very well written and I encourage you and everyone to actually read it from top to bottom.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This Court was absolutely worth the effort.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This decision allows affirmative action on a case by case basis but prohibits the assumption that all Blacks are ignorant and poor. Sounds good to me. Now, if we could only get the judges at REGB to understand that young Black males have to carry more than their God-given equipment to live in the ghetto, we will be getting somewhere.
    In fact, now that everyone can carry a gun may be the time to sue to have the felon-in-possession law declared unconstitutional in all but cases involving felonies where a gun is used.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Having read the 303 Creative opinion now, Rumpole, you are also wrong about what that case says and does. The major issues is there is, if, as most of us do, that it is a violation of the first amendment to compel a gay man who designs websites to design a website spouting a homophobic messages against gay marriage, then the inverse (compelling a christian fanatic web designer to design a gay wedding website) must also be unconstitutional - either way, it is the government compelling you to say something you don't believe.

    People often say "freedom isn't free." Most of the time, they mean something stupid like, freedom requires us to exchange bullets with brown people in west Asia. But what that phrase really means is that our freedom to say what other people don't like requires that we let other people express the opinions that we don't like. Or in this case, if we don't want to be compelled to say things we disagree with, we can't compel others to say things they disagree with.

    Most of us already agree on this point, but are blinded by the hot-button issue of sexual identity. Imagine instead if we were talking about religion. Should states be allowed to compel an atheist web designer to make a website that says "atheists are evil, they will burn in hell, and good Christians should shun all atheists"? Of course not. The fact that the customer is a christian and we are not allowed to discriminate based on race doesn't change that compelling the web designer to make this website would be an absolute violation of the web designer's freedom of speech.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rumpole says that in 303 Creative the Supreme Court held that "Businesses can discriminate against a customer on the basis of their sexual orientation." It does not.

    303 Creative and the State of Colorado stipulated that 303 Creative's owner is “willing to work with all people regardless of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender, and she will gladly create custom graphics and websites for clients of any sexual orientation." This is a case solely about the content of the speech that 303 Creative could be compelled to make - not for whom she will be compelled to provide services to.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rump,

    I'm as gay as the next fellow, maybe gayer, but I don't think that 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis has anything to do with gay.

    A website is the same as a book or a pamphlet. A web designer is exactly like a author. How can Colorado constitutionally require a writer to write a book with which he disagrees. Leave religion out of the equation, what if it is only political. Should the State of Colorado be able to force a Democratic Web designer to write a pro-Trump website?

    Forced speech is as bad as forbidden speech.

    Kid

    ReplyDelete
  8. The problem in Harvard case is that Hispanics and other minorities should not be put in the same basket as blacks and Indians. Hispanics and other minorities have not suffered at the hands of the American government the way blacks and Indians have in this ruthless nation. Judge Thomas is the undisputed goat judge for big fee criminal defense lawyers so he gets an automatic pass pls see cuellar v usa.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @524:

    The problem with your reasoning is that it requires judges to make policy decisions. But unelected judges should not be making policy decisions. The 14th amendment is colorblind. That was the policy decision made when it was ratified. If you/we want to change that policy to treat certain racial groups differently than others for the purpose of righting some historical wrong, we the people, through amendment of constitution, are the ones to do it - not a majority of an unelected group of nine lifetime appointees.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What is the name of the app you use to track crime reports?

    ReplyDelete
  11. You completely misrepresent 303 Creative, I can only assume intentionally since you're not dumb.

    The holding says you cannot be forced to engage in expression with which you do not agree. The same holding allows a Muslim sign maker to decline to make a sign depicting the Prophet (PBUH), or a gay marketing executive from being required to create slogans for the "marriage is between a man and a woman crowd," or, yes, a Christian cake decorator from providing designs for for Beelzebub cupcakes the Satanists Society of Podunk's afternoon tea.

    It even protects YOUR right to be free from compelled expression Rumpole. And you know it.

    A hotel owner cannot refuse a room to member of protected class on the basis of that status. A car mechanic cannot decline to change the oil. A grocery store cannot bar access. But the holding does affirm what ought to be clear to anyone: That you have a right not only to say what you believe, but to be free from being MADE to say something you don't.

    Leveraging this common sense conclusion to make cheap political points and sow division is shameful.

    ReplyDelete