B-Man Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 (edited) Lots of cases left, and we're close to the end, so today could be very exciting, but it could also be one of those fizzles. We'll find out soon. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/announcement-of-opinions-for-thursday-june-20/ .https://althouse.blogspot.com/2024/06/scotusblog-is-live-blogging_20.html . Edited June 20 by B-Man 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 20 Author Share Posted June 20 The first case is a tax case — a 16th Amendment case — Moore v. United States. Thomas and Gorsuch dissent, Barrett and Alito concur. As SCOTUSblog puts it: "Because the couple in the case here never actually received the investment gains that were subject to the tax, Thomas contends, they cannot be taxed as 'income' under the Sixteenth Amendment." In Thomas's words: "Sixteenth Amendment 'income' is only realized income. We should not have hesitated to say so in this case." AND: "We have the second opinion. It is Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon. It is by Justice Kagan and the vote is 6-3. Thomas dissents, joined by Alito; Gorsuch has his own dissent." From the syllabus of the opinion: "The presence of probable cause for one charge in a criminal proceeding does not categorically defeat a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim relating to another, baseless charge." ALSO: Diaz v. US. — "It is 6-3, with a Gorsuch dissent joined by Sotomayor and Kagan." "The court holds that expert testimony that 'most people" have a particular mental state is not an opinion about the defendant and therefore does not violate federal evidentiary rules." FINALLY: Gonzales v. Trevino: "The per curiam opinion agrees with Gonzalez, the woman who was arrested, that the court of appeals took a view of Nieves that was too narrow. Requiring her to provide examples of people who also mishandled a government petition but were not arrested 'goes too far,' the court holds." . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 21 Author Share Posted June 21 Oops ! Today's String of Supreme Court Decisions Blew Up Another Liberal Narrative (Again) Matt Vespa The Supreme Court has not yet decided on the presidential immunity case involving former President Donald Trump, which could wreck the pending trials from Special Counsel Jack Smith on January 6 and classified document indictments. At the same time, the string of decisions today did unravel another trite liberal talking regarding our third branch of government: it’s a rogue, right-wing machine that’s out to destroy America. The three decisions today obliterated that narrative. There were no 5-4 decisions, and some concurring and dissenting opinions were—wait for it—made up of diverse company https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/06/20/todays-string-of-supreme-court-decisions-blew-up-another-liberal-narrative-again-n2640731 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 21 Author Share Posted June 21 (edited) MORE TODAY. The Supreme Court rules, in Department of State v. Muñoz, a 6-3 decision written by Barrett. There's a concurring opinion by Gorsuch. The dissenting opinion by Justice Sotomayor begins: https://althouse.blogspot.com/2024/06/a-citizen-does-not-have-fundamental.html . Edited June 21 by B-Man 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 6 minutes ago, B-Man said: MORE TODAY. The Supreme Court rules, in Department of State v. Muñoz, a 6-3 decision written by Barrett. There's a concurring opinion by Gorsuch. The dissenting opinion by Justice Sotomayor begins: https://althouse.blogspot.com/2024/06/a-citizen-does-not-have-fundamental.html . Making life better everyday👍 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 21 Author Share Posted June 21 MORE: "When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment." The Supreme Court rules in United States v. Rahimi. The opinion is written by the Chief Justice, joined by everyone except Thomas, who dissents. There are also concurring opinions by Sotomayor (joined by Kagan) and by Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. That's a lot to sort through. https://althouse.blogspot.com/2024/06/when-individual-has-been-found-by-court.html https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 20 minutes ago, B-Man said: MORE: "When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment." The Supreme Court rules in United States v. Rahimi. The opinion is written by the Chief Justice, joined by everyone except Thomas, who dissents. There are also concurring opinions by Sotomayor (joined by Kagan) and by Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. That's a lot to sort through. https://althouse.blogspot.com/2024/06/when-individual-has-been-found-by-court.html https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf . Thomas doesn't think domestic abusers should lose their guns? 🤷♂️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 21 Author Share Posted June 21 (edited) 7 hours ago, Tiberius said: Thomas doesn't think domestic abusers should lose their guns? 🤷♂️ No. Read his reasons for his dissent before embarrassing yourself. . Edited June 21 by B-Man 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roundybout Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 1 hour ago, B-Man said: No. Read his reasons for his dissent for embarrassing yourself. . He’s taking the hardline stance that “no regulation supersedes the second amendment” unless it falls within “historical tradition” of gun control. His reasoning is vague but not out of line with his other decisions citing “historical tradition.” It’s why many think he’s going to support overturning Oberfell. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotSHO Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 2 hours ago, TH3 said: Making life better everyday👍 If you disagree - why have any laws then? Or are you just whining? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roundybout Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 4 hours ago, Roundybout said: I swear I’ve seen you break out “the right can’t meme”. 🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽🤦🏽♀️ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roundybout Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 2 hours ago, B-Man said: Hahahahaha. Using fake "quotes" to try and make your point (and fail) Simplified SCOTUS is right. I wouldn’t expect a conservative to understand the point of that Twitter account, as @JDHillFan notes, the right can’t meme 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 The founding fathers probably didn’t find it necessary to spell out “oh, and in the very likely case that guns get exponentially more powerful than they are today, and a court decides that a person is so dangerous to another person that they can’t even share space with them, well yeah, this ***** amendment doesn’t apply to them… obviously.” 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 I think the right lost here, right? Thomas is a goon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 11 hours ago, stevestojan said: The founding fathers probably didn’t find it necessary to spell out “oh, and in the very likely case that guns get exponentially more powerful than they are today, and a court decides that a person is so dangerous to another person that they can’t even share space with them, well yeah, this ***** amendment doesn’t apply to them… obviously.” If a court decided that in 1790 the subject would be executed within a week. And before it got the chance it’s likely the brothers and other male relations of the aggrieved woman would have taken care of it. What the founders didn’t imagine is a society chock full of anti-socials. I agree that those who display chronically anti-social behavior should be deprived of several rights. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 On 6/21/2024 at 11:57 PM, stevestojan said: The founding fathers probably didn’t find it necessary to spell out “oh, and in the very likely case that guns get exponentially more powerful than they are today, and a court decides that a person is so dangerous to another person that they can’t even share space with them, well yeah, this ***** amendment doesn’t apply to them… obviously.” Hence the 8 to 1 ruling. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 On 6/22/2024 at 1:26 AM, Joe Ferguson forever said: I think the right lost here, right? Thomas is a goon. Somehow making an absolutely obvious decision now qualifies as “blowing up the lefts narrative” 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roundybout Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts