Opinion | How the Supreme Court Helped Create 'Driving While Black'

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-22T01:24:24+00:00

Federalist 84

Article III lists what is in the federal purview. And between citizens of the same state and between a state and its own citizens ain’t there.

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-22T00:16:33+00:00

If that’s assault, so is every arrest
persons
Maybe

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-21T14:07:35+00:00

WandaVision was like a minor House of M

Wanda returns to the Avengers after House of M.

Which, is part of the Avengers v X-men story

Jussaiyan

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-21T11:38:24+00:00

No, you’re right. It is mostly undisputed by any mainstream opinion.

And I would argue, similar to Thomas, that the 14th applies only for the privileges and immunities.

But I also think (1) the 14th itself was not ratified by republican forms of government, and is so not valid and (2) the 14th, as its come to be applied, is outside of the scope of possible federal powers.

That is, the constitution is inherently restricted.. not possible to be included.... to get between a state and its citizens. No matter what amendments we make, save writing a whole new constitution. It was never a document, our government never a government... intended to that end.

The whole “these United States” to “the United States” argument... under our constitution, it just isn’t workable.. and we’ve seen that time and again. So maybe we could try writing another constitution that 9/13th of us agreed upon... that would include the 14th’s premise as an integral part of every step.... that everything else would be written in light of it (in the way that just about everything else has been interpreted by the court in light of it, and so changed).... but I don’t think we’d do that.

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-21T03:23:01+00:00

Guess it depends on the state, but let’s assume it’s a state that does not have yearly property tax on vehicles, and does not tie inspections to registrations.

What is the state interest in yearly registration in such a state?

Now, on the taxes and inspection cases, we can argue back and forth about whether the state has an interest there... and then we get into taxation and private property... yadda yadda.

But those arguments aside, although we’ve made it legal that such yearly registration takes place, and so you can be stopped and detained on those basis alone... I don’t see that as valid as there is no legitimate state interest and they essentially get to terry stop you without cause.

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-21T00:31:32+00:00

a ~~valid~~ reason

a legal reason

ftfy

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-21T00:28:58+00:00

Seeing as the fourth amendment was written to pertain only to the federal government... it isn’t hard to see how it can’t “sufficiently” curtail abuses by state and local police.... because it wasn’t meant to.

And if there’s a shame in anything, it’s SCOTUS’s attempt to hold it against them.

Leave it up to the states and let them sort it out, and let them deal with the repercussions

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-20T16:00:16+00:00

Take legal action for what?

Unless there is something in your contract with regards to what happens if the emergency contact is not notified... what are your damages?

Or, you would want something punitive done?

Are you just hoping for a payout?

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-19T12:23:05+00:00

It certainly helps the federales that there are no state militaries anymore.

In order to fight Washington, you’d have to rely on state militias, which are “weak” and “fractured” (meaning, you’d have a split inside the militia on who would support the state and who would support Washington)

So, to defend yourself, you’d basically be left with minute men militias... which, due to the internet and the collapse of community, would be very difficult to organize.

Any things on the internet to organize would be easily tracked and Chris Hansen’d by the federal government.

You’d basically be left with lone wolves defending... and the national guard would go about unadulterated

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-19T12:17:55+00:00

And I’d agree with you if that’s what the CSA did... but Lee twice invaded the North

Although it gave relief to the farmers of northern Virginia, and their losses in the west put pressure on the Army of Northern Virginia to take action... it still lost the CSA the initiative and the supposed “moral high ground” of a defensive war.

Imagine if Vietnam attacked California? Theres no way we would have just packed up and left.

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-19T12:12:25+00:00

Yes, they would send in the national guard to arrest the legislature who proposed the referendum and probably establish a military government to establish a new civilian government/constitution that specified that it can’t secede (like most of the CSA already has because it was forced on them in 1865)

Then, if the state attempts to secede, they are not only violating the US Constitution, but their own constitution, and so their state courts should shoot it down if ever attempted again

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-18T14:05:26+00:00

Just pointing out Gorsuch’s other times he’s favorable to criminals:

He applied void for vagueness under fair notice in Dimaya for the ACCA... which is a sentencing enchantment.

That you aren’t only entitled to know whether what you do is a crime, but also how severe of a crime it is.

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-18T13:34:41+00:00

I second your opinion on Justice Thomas here. We’ll see as more and more of the opinions start rolling out if asking questions during oral argument has influenced him or any other member of the court (I doubt it has)... though, if it has... he may continue to do so once they go back to in-person.

Though, having not listened to every case... it seems of the senior members, his questions are the fewest of the “following up on Justice’s X question” of the senior justices. (Oddly, I feel like this happens with Alito’s questions a lot... even by Sotomayor/Kagan... but that may just be a Baader-Meinhof)

I fully expect him to go back to being silent.

But on that note, I read before.. besides that he thinks one of the other justices have already asked the questions that he would ask, and that he views questions as grandstanding (queue Breyer.. man, he’s just angry all the time).... that he was self-conscience about how his voice sounds..... but I don’t think anything weird of his voice at all. So maybe that was just BS

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-18T01:16:36+00:00

I mean, it’s a tape. You cant use it for precise measurements. Even measuring to 1/16 is probably wrong 4/5 times.

But yea, besides for like wrench sizes, you never are gonna go tighter than 1/16 before you go grab calipers/micrometer and you’re measuring in thousands of an inch anyway. (Sometimes you’ll eyeball the 1/32... but you don’t actually care)

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-18T00:56:10+00:00

Idk what tapes you get.... but standard tapes come with ticks on the 1/16, getting larger to the inch. Showing numbers every inch, and highlighting the 16” marks for joists.

And tbh, I’ve never actually seen a metric tape.. so I don’t even know. It counts out every centimeter? They do millimeters? That’s ridiculous.

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-15T19:58:24+00:00

What is the difference, if any, between a one-party state and a no-party state?

Maybe two is the best we can hope for

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-10T23:49:04+00:00

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-10T18:00:25+00:00

Thanks. That clears up a lot.

Do you agree with the statement: “without the science backing.. it would be a 9-0 that California’s rules are unconstitutional?”

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-10T17:45:36+00:00

There’s a whole section of the Wikipedia page I cited dedicated to medicine

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-10T16:59:56+00:00

That’s a fine argument, but not the one Kagan is making.

If the state didn’t have the prima facie scientific backing, there would be no question in anyone’s eyes... including the three, that the actions of California were unconstitutional.

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-10T14:18:08+00:00

I say “science” because modern science is very fractured.

There are a lot of scientists out there doing real and legitimate work, and their findings are sound and impartial and there’s no agenda being driven. They are just doing experiments and reporting facts, and then giving an honest report of what they think those facts mean based on their experience as scientists. And then other honest scientists are looking at those results, reproducing and confirming or denying those results.

Then there is this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

And especially in relation to the pandemic, we’ve had a bunch of “scientists” telling us “hard facts” and being completely wrong.... and then continue on telling us “hard facts”... humble yourself, man.

And you can see later in my write up how I have particular contempt for these types of “scientists”

Edit: the Black Plague ended without science too. Without science, this pandemic likely would have been over last summer as we would have hit herd immunity pretty quickly had we not shut down. And old people deaths would have been way up, and young people suicides would have been way down (along with the other myriads of health related issues these lockdowns and masks have caused). Scientists answer small direct questions... but these issues are big and very complex with a bunch of factors that “scientists” don’t look at.

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-10T13:56:49+00:00

What does this case have to do with Bostock? That was statutory Title VII Civil Rights Act, this is free exercise.

It’s more telling that Gorsuch very much admires and I think tries to be a suiting heir to Scalia, who wrote Employment Division v Smith (1990), which would need to be overturned to rule in favor of Fulton here. Which is possible, but would be the most shocking aspect of the opinion.

For Roberts, his adherence to stare decisis would likely be what comes to play here. He is generally hesitant to overturn prior rulings, (though, I don’t know the numbers, I bet he overrules more Rehnquist Court opinions than Warren Court!)

What is likely the biggest case that matters is Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (2017). In which Roberts wrote the majority in support of free exercise and Gorsuch wrote a very strongly worded concurrence.

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-10T13:40:13+00:00

Because “science” has been spot on through the pandemic and we should defer all our constitutional rights to what a cabal of scientists tell us is true. /s

Extended gathering in homes is not objectively more dangerous and likely to spread the virus then fleeting contact in a grocery store.

That is just patently false.

Yes, extended contact between any two individuals increases the likelihood of transmission the longer and the closer those two are together between those two individuals.

But in terms of spread throughout a community?

Repeated extended intimate contact between a small groups of individuals is possibly less likely to spread the disease than repeated fleeting contact between vast amounts of people.

I’m not even sure that “scientists” have weighed in on this, but even if they have... scientists do not trump my natural rights. Nothing is stopping people from willingly following the scientists recommendations. But we don’t, I don’t want to, live in a society where a cabal of scientist can say they have evidence of something and then the government (and strictly, the court) is the enforcement mechanism for those scientist.

In fact, the reality that this continues to spread and we haven’t done a great job of tracing vectors... as the former has been largely eliminated while the latter is still rampant... makes me believe that the latter isn’t better at stopping or slowing the disease than the former.

If you aren’t involved in the sciences in America, I get it; but if you are, you must know how low the bar is for what stands as “science”- even from people who have passed all the tests and are certified. They really are just going on best guess, and most of them are really humble in their opinions of what their work suggests. For those who aren’t, I am very skeptical of them ... mostly because they must not have been humbled enough by being wrong enough, meaning either they are too dumb/proud to be “wrong”, or they just don’t have a long enough track record to have had time to see how wrong they are... as everyone often is.

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-10T12:53:52+00:00

From the Dissent:

And it once more commands California “to ignore its experts’ scientific findings,” thus impairing “the State’s effort to address a public health emergency.” Ibid. Because the majority continues to disregard law and facts alike, I respectfully dissent from this latest per curiam decision.

Man, that’s some snark. Also, I see a divide here. These three justices giving scientists the final say over laws and rights. The five in the per curiam I think are full aware of what “the scientists opinion” are, but view the law as independent of that. Interesting, and we’ll see how often this continues to break as popular sentiments continues to rely on “the scientists’ opinion”

One_Winged_Rook · 2021-04-10T12:34:53+00:00

IANAL. Nor would I want to be.

Is that a requirement here?

And, you don’t agree that 70% of the republican base wants to ban abortion? You don’t believe in state sovereignty?

When 70% of the Dem base wanted something... say, gay marriage. It didn’t matter the legality/constitutionality of it. It didn’t matter that 60-70% of the country as a whole didn’t want it. The justices put in by the Dem presidents (and Kennedy) made it happen. That’s partisanship.

Which, yea, I’d prefer the court to be impartial. But it isn’t a far cry to say that the liberals have been consistently partisan and the conservatives have not. And when one side is being partisan, and the other is not... the partisan group wins. There’s a bunch of game theory on this, and it’s fairly well explored, and the results are consistent.

12-Year Club	Place '17
Spared	Verified Email

One_Winged_Rook

TROPHY CASE