SCOTUS Watch

[El Guapo]

I hadn't heard that. I have read previously that like Roe Miranda has been whittled away for years. Still it seems crazy that the police who are largely unaccountable would have basic guardrails/restrictions removed and allow even more abuse of power. But it seems right considering the dark path this nation is heading.

I also think this story fits nearly into the building case that we face radical transformation via SCOTUS though. They're willing to throw out decades of established law to suit their ideological beliefs. That's the middle to late stage of the end of many democracies.

News to me too. In many ways seems crazier than overturning Roe in that like you say the value of Miranda protections has been hollowed out already anyway. Miranda is sufficiently entrenched in popular culture thanks to Law and Order and the like that it will feel like a big deal that it's overruled to lots of people. But at the same time unlike Roe there isn't the same popular pressure to overrule it.

But yeah, another sign that the brakes are off at SCOTUS.

[malchior]

But at the same time unlike Roe there isn't the same unpopular pressure to overrule it.

FTFY.

But yeah, another sign that the brakes are off at SCOTUS.

Definitely. It isn't hard to thought experiment how insane this court's operating instructions for American democracy are. There are already so many wacky rules between states as is and now you have to worry about how you engage with law enforcement and the awesome prosecutorial power of the state. Now they'll be even more situational as applied state to state? There aren't even basic ground rules that are stable? This country is tearing itself to pieces and the Supreme Court is accelerating it without accountability.

[Carpet_pissr]

Not sure why you guys sound so surprised. You can't exactly build Gilead with all these pesky liberalistic amendments and such in your way.

[stessier]

It's opinion day.

Carson v Makin is a case about a Maine law providing for tuition assistance to people who live in a county without a secondary school. The law allowed for assistance as long as the school chosen wasn't religious. This was struck down (6-3) and, as the minority points out, sure seems to indicate States MUST provide tuition for religious school as part of their schooling requirement.

[malchior]

Sotomayor clearly called out how radical this ruling was. She used staid phrases like 'growing concern' but the message was clear. Guess we are going to find out if the country tolerates rule by unelected juristocrats.

[stessier]

Sotomayor clearly called out how radical this ruling was. She used staid phrases like 'growing concern' but the message was clear. Guess we are going to find out if the country tolerates rule by unelected juristocrats.

I thought Breyer did a good job showing that too, although it seemed like he started repeating himself a bit in the middle. I'll forgive him for being gobsmacked.

[malchior]

[malchior]

Another bite taken out of Miranda in Vega v. Tekoh

Essentially the police can abuse your Miranda rights and you essentially have no legal path to actually sue the government to get compensation for the abuse by the police. It doesn't prevent you from suppressing evidence (yet probably) based on such conduct but walls up the ever strengthening wall against accountability for police conduct.

[malchior]

The SCOTUS just struck down concealed carry permitting. There is now an explicit right to bear arms outside your home. This was the one beyond Dobbs that scared me to death. These radicals are going to get people killed. A risk they just received explicit protection from individually. What problem isn't solved with more guns? I say bring on the divorce.

[stessier]

So after Bruen which rules New York's "proper-cause" requirement for concealed carry to be unconstitutional, how does anyone legislate gun control?

[malchior]

So after Bruen which rules New York's "proper-cause" requirement for concealed carry to be unconstitutional, how does anyone legislate gun control?

Guess we'll find out but let's be honest. The answer with these tyrants is nothing. They didn't strike down 'shall issue' so there is a better chance that they will have a record of the person who killed us. Still, they just trampled all over *our state rights*. We might all have to worry about being gunned down anywhere, anytime but at least we can join in the carnage without pesky government interference now.

Edit: That absolute ghoul shit bag Alito points out in his concurrence that the law didn't stop the Buffalo shooter.

[Kraken]

So after Bruen which rules New York's "proper-cause" requirement for concealed carry to be unconstitutional, how does anyone legislate gun control?

Guess we'll find out but let's be honest. The answer with these tyrants is nothing. They didn't strike down 'shall issue' so there is a better chance that they will have a record of the person who killed us. Still, they just trampled all over *our state rights*. We might all have to worry about being gunned down anywhere, anytime but at least we can join in the carnage without pesky government interference now.

This is not going to play well in MA, where we just plain don't want people carrying guns around. Hopefully our legislature can find some workarounds that will stave this off until the next bad decision. For example, I believe that states can still prohibit guns in specific venues...so maybe we can just define all public spaces as those specific venues.

[malchior]

So after Bruen which rules New York's "proper-cause" requirement for concealed carry to be unconstitutional, how does anyone legislate gun control?

Guess we'll find out but let's be honest. The answer with these tyrants is nothing. They didn't strike down 'shall issue' so there is a better chance that they will have a record of the person who killed us. Still, they just trampled all over *our state rights*. We might all have to worry about being gunned down anywhere, anytime but at least we can join in the carnage without pesky government interference now.

This is not going to play well in MA, where we just plain don't want people carrying guns around. Hopefully our legislature can find some workarounds that will stave this off until the next bad decision. For example, I believe that states can still prohibit guns in specific venues...so maybe we can just define all public spaces as those specific venues.

It won't work. They anticipated that and talked through that in the opinion. That's only IMO after a quick skim but I can't see them allowing it. They've expanded Heller dramatically and radically here.

[Isgrimnur]

So after Bruen which rules New York's "proper-cause" requirement for concealed carry to be unconstitutional, how does anyone legislate gun control?

May-issue has always been corrupt bullshit.

[stessier]

So after Bruen which rules New York's "proper-cause" requirement for concealed carry to be unconstitutional, how does anyone legislate gun control?

May-issue has always been corrupt bullshit.

I think the Amendment should be repealed, so meh.

[malchior]

So after Bruen which rules New York's "proper-cause" requirement for concealed carry to be unconstitutional, how does anyone legislate gun control?

May-issue has always been corrupt bullshit.

I mean ... to an extent true but that isn't the point and that didn't factor into why they knocked it down.

[Isgrimnur]

So after Bruen which rules New York's "proper-cause" requirement for concealed carry to be unconstitutional, how does anyone legislate gun control?

May-issue has always been corrupt bullshit.

I think the Amendment should be repealed, so meh.

Doesn't change my previous sentiment either way.

[LawBeefaroni]

So after Bruen which rules New York's "proper-cause" requirement for concealed carry to be unconstitutional, how does anyone legislate gun control?

Guess we'll find out but let's be honest. The answer with these tyrants is nothing. They didn't strike down 'shall issue' so there is a better chance that they will have a record of the person who killed us. Still, they just trampled all over *our state rights*. We might all have to worry about being gunned down anywhere, anytime but at least we can join in the carnage without pesky government interference now.

This is not going to play well in MA, where we just plain don't want people carrying guns around. Hopefully our legislature can find some workarounds that will stave this off until the next bad decision. For example, I believe that states can still prohibit guns in specific venues...so maybe we can just define all public spaces as those specific venues.

It won't work. They anticipated that and talked through that in the opinion. That's only IMO after a quick skim but I can't see them allowing it. They've expanded Heller dramatically and radically here.

It would have gotten kicked to them anyway and they'd have decided that gun-free venues are unconstitutional.


As a CCL permit holder I really don't like this either.

[Octavious]

So every fucking state is going to have morons walking around with concealed carry? That's fucking horrifying.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[malchior]

So every fucking state is going to have morons walking around with concealed carry? That's fucking horrifying.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Every state does already. The change is that states now has very much less discretion to say no now. You have a *right* to it that they claim is grounded in the very fabric of this nation. They've also again staked out crazy, radical, and reactionary legal theory here that unless the regulation existed at a time when the goddamn steam engine had barely been invented that it can't be considered as part of the debate. They trample on a precedent from Reconstruction in this opinion. That opinion was too new for these wacko tyrants. We're in deep trouble here.

[Smoove_B]

I guess at this point our only hope is insurance companies, well that's assuming we can pass laws requiring gun owners (and carriers) to be specifically insured.

[malchior]

NY is likely going to be first up trying to figure out what SCOTUS will allow to be a 'sensitive location'.

[malchior]

I guess at this point our only hope is insurance companies, well that's assuming we can pass laws requiring gun owners (and carriers) to be specifically insured.

I don't even think the insurance option will be on the table anytime soon. I just listened to Steve Vladeck pointing out that the opinion pretty much greenlit much more expansion of rights to guns. His prediction is that what is more likely to occur and happen is that we are going to see a dramatic expansion of challenges to existing 'restrictions'. In that chaos I can't see how you'd even set up an insurance market for this.

[stessier]

So every fucking state is going to have morons walking around with concealed carry? That's fucking horrifying.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Every state does already. The change is that states now has very much less discretion to say no now. You have a *right* to it that they claim is grounded in the very fabric of this nation. They've also again staked out crazy, radical, and reactionary legal theory here that unless the regulation existed at a time when the goddamn steam engine had barely been invented that it can't be considered as part of the debate. They trample on a precedent from Reconstruction in this opinion. That opinion was too new for these wacko tyrants. We're in deep trouble here.

They also said the instances from that time that support the restrictions were outliers and should be ignored.

[malchior]

So every fucking state is going to have morons walking around with concealed carry? That's fucking horrifying.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Every state does already. The change is that states now has very much less discretion to say no now. You have a *right* to it that they claim is grounded in the very fabric of this nation. They've also again staked out crazy, radical, and reactionary legal theory here that unless the regulation existed at a time when the goddamn steam engine had barely been invented that it can't be considered as part of the debate. They trample on a precedent from Reconstruction in this opinion. That opinion was too new for these wacko tyrants. We're in deep trouble here.

They also said the instances from that time that support the restrictions were outliers and should be ignored.

True. That's the thing that is particularly galling. I don't think people are really attuned to how blatant the hypocrisy and exercise of raw power in the open this is. It's actually managed to be worse than some expected. Sotomayor has apparently decided her role is to just write dissents for historical perspective IMO.

[Kurth]

I thought this point from an opinion piece by Judge Luttig and Prof. Bernstein yesterday in the NYT was spot on:

The District of Columbia bans handguns in public in many places — including at or near protests, in broad areas near the Capitol and the White House, and on public transit. Two days before the Capitol riot, the district’s then-acting police chief publicly warned protesters they would be jailed if they brought their handguns to the protest. A large majority heeded his warning and left their guns at home. Had the district’s strict restrictions on public carry not been on the books, there would doubtless have been even more lives lost and more mayhem on Jan. 6 as the rioters tried to prevent the Electoral College vote count that day.

I’m afraid the likely insurrection coming out of the 2024 election is going to make the last one look like a peaceful sit-in.

[Smoove_B]

Also:

Gonna be very weird if Supreme Court ends a constitutional right to obtain an abortion next week, saying it should be left to the States to decide, right after it just imposed a constitutional right to concealed carry of firearms, saying it cannot be left to the States to decide

[Kurth]

Also:

Gonna be very weird if Supreme Court ends a constitutional right to obtain an abortion next week, saying it should be left to the States to decide, right after it just imposed a constitutional right to concealed carry of firearms, saying it cannot be left to the States to decide

I get the obvious tension, but it’s really not all that weird is it?

The Second Amendment is a thing. The Right to an Abortion Amendment is not.

[Octavious]

So aside from Roe are there any other horrifying things they are going to drop on us in the next two weeks?

[Unagi]

The Second Amendment is a thing. The Right to an Abortion Amendment is not.

Well, the Supreme Court had decided it didn't need to be amended - that it protected a woman's right to an abortion unamended.

[malchior]

Also:

Gonna be very weird if Supreme Court ends a constitutional right to obtain an abortion next week, saying it should be left to the States to decide, right after it just imposed a constitutional right to concealed carry of firearms, saying it cannot be left to the States to decide

I get the obvious tension, but it’s really not all that weird is it?

The Second Amendment is a thing. The Right to an Abortion Amendment is not.

Sorta. It's not entirely about a right to an abortion. It is grounded in the tension between anyone's right to privacy from government interference. The Conservatives grounded it in 14th Amendment law. Thomas used the same amendment to open a door to expand the 2nd amendment. To wit, the 14th gives you more access to the 2nd but also less access to the 4th. It also flies in the face of their new bullshit based doctrine about regulation at the time the laws were written.

[stessier]

Also:

Gonna be very weird if Supreme Court ends a constitutional right to obtain an abortion next week, saying it should be left to the States to decide, right after it just imposed a constitutional right to concealed carry of firearms, saying it cannot be left to the States to decide

I get the obvious tension, but it’s really not all that weird is it?

The Second Amendment is a thing. The Right to an Abortion Amendment is not.

The Second Amendment does not specifically say what they claim - they interpreted it. The idea that they can do that but then interpret out the right to privacy from several other amendments is the tension.

[malchior]

So aside from Roe are there any other horrifying things they are going to drop on us in the next two weeks?

They very well might say the EPA can't regulate pollution for the purposes of preventing climate change. Probably because climate change wasn't happening at the founding of the nation.

[malchior]

The Second Amendment does not specifically say what they claim - they interpreted it. The idea that they can do that but then interpret out the right to privacy from several other amendments is the tension.

Right. I mean nothing about what they just did screams 'well-regulated'. Though to be fair, they also basically ignored part of plain language of the the 1st amendment in Carson so all bets are off.

[Kurth]

Just to expand on the comment above, here’s the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Imagine if there were an Abortion Amendment, modeled after the Second, that read something along the lines of:

Well regulated reproductive rights, being necessary to the prosperity of a free State, the right of women to choose to have an abortion, shall not be infringed.

If that were the status quo, it would, indeed, be “very weird” for the SCOTUS to find reasonable state gun control legislation unconstitutional in the same week it upheld state bans on abortion.

But that’s not the situation we find ourselves in. I’m beating a dead horse here, but we’re never going to get past this gun problem until we solve the problem at the core, and that’s the Second Amendment. Any other “fix” is just a band aid that is likely to get ripped off the next time there’s a significant shift on the high court, especially now that they’ve shown about as much respect for stare decisis as I have for most of them.

[stessier]

Just to expand on the comment above, here’s the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The court interpreted that to mean personal self defense is the core of the amendment. I read that and see that the security of the State is the core of the amendment and that guns were needed in the hands of a "well regulated Militia" to protect the country's existence. That is not where we are and it's not because the language is confusing.

[malchior]

But that’s not the situation we find ourselves in. I’m beating a dead horse here, but we’re never going to get past this gun problem until we solve the problem at the core, and that’s the Second Amendment.

If only the 2nd amendment was the problem. But the rot is deeper IMO as follows your next sentence.

Any other “fix” is just a band aid that is likely to get ripped off the next time there’s a significant shift on the high court, especially now that they’ve shown about as much respect for stare decisis as I have for most of them.

The one thing I think has most shaken me is that the law is not on stable ground anymore. They are throwing out century old laws to suit their ideological and frankly fantastical belief about what our society should look like. They are doing it in incredibly unwise ways to boot. As Luttig/Bernstein point out they're essentially overruling experts, local authorities, etc with their vision. I won't be surprised to hear some very serious scholars talking about how the United States is already a authoritarian country due to this court. We'll see but this session has pretty much dimmed my outlook on the ability of this nation to survive.

Just to expand on the comment above, here’s the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The court interpreted that to mean personal self defense is the core of the amendment. I read that and see that the security of the State is the core of the amendment and that guns were needed in the hands of a "well regulated Militia" to protect the country's existence. That is not where we are and it's not because the language is confusing.

Exactly and it isn't like that interpretation is well-grounded. It sprang out of the ground 14 years ago based on a plan that was hatched by radicals in the 70s. These interpretations are not even close to the text as written or it's intent.

[Smoove_B]

I won't be surprised to hear some very serious scholars talking about how the United States is already a authoritarian country due to this court. We'll see but this session has pretty much dimmed my outlook on the ability of this nation to survive.

Wait until states start jailing women for having a miscarriage.

[$iljanus]

So every fucking state is going to have morons walking around with concealed carry? That's fucking horrifying.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Every state does already. The change is that states now has very much less discretion to say no now. You have a *right* to it that they claim is grounded in the very fabric of this nation. They've also again staked out crazy, radical, and reactionary legal theory here that unless the regulation existed at a time when the goddamn steam engine had barely been invented that it can't be considered as part of the debate. They trample on a precedent from Reconstruction in this opinion. That opinion was too new for these wacko tyrants. We're in deep trouble here.

They also said the instances from that time that support the restrictions were outliers and should be ignored.

Even the Socialist Republic of Massachusetts is fucked since we have similar restrictions on concealed carry licenses.

As said by that radical liberal in writing the majority opinion on Heller...

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” Scalia wrote as he laid out certain exceptions. History demonstrates, Scalia said, “the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

[Unagi]

Just to expand on the comment above, here’s the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The court interpreted that to mean personal self defense is the core of the amendment. I read that and see that the security of the State is the core of the amendment and that guns were needed in the hands of a "well regulated Militia" to protect the country's existence. That is not where we are and it's not because the language is confusing.

That's my pretty obvious read of that text as well.
And also, I will point out that it was all about the security of a free State - and yet the State here is having its hand forced Federally.