U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

Will slurp juice give debilitating strokes

A California man carrying at least one weapon near Brett Kavanaugh’s Maryland home has been taken into custody by police, after telling officers he wanted to kill the Supreme Court justice, according to people familiar with the investigation.

The individual, described as a man in his mid-20s, was found to be carrying at least one weapon and burglary tools, these people said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. Police were apparently notified that the person might pose a threat to the justice, but it was not immediately clear who provided the initial tip, these people said. The man apparently did not make it on to Kavanaugh’s property in Montgomery County, but he was stopped on a nearby street, these people said.

Two people familiar with the investigation said the initial evidence indicates the man was angry about the leaked draft of an opinion by the Supreme Court signaling the court is preparing to overturn Roe. v. Wade, the 49-year-old decision that guaranteed a person’s constitutional right to have an abortion. He was also angry over a recent spate of mass shootings, those people said.

whew now we can support mental health funding

And ban burglary tools

We should be hardening our Supreme Court justices imho

and swallow their tears

surprised that doesn't happen more often to be honest

a while ago i almost posted the extreemely lame shitpost “want more gun control talk? organize poc militias w high visibility and really prominent discussion on community organization that is against/aside cops and extra-legal (but within the law).”

this would likely be v terrible esp for most poc afaict, terrible in so many ways. accelerationist in like 4D really.

(if you don’t think it would be terrible, i don’t wanna debate it, will listen to the criticisms polite-like)

Yeah, there's a bunch of Reagan quotes you can dig up where he came out very strong in favor of gun control...

When he was governor of CA, and the Black Panthers had begun doing armed patrols

That is one of said shitpost ref points for sure as it is pretty common nollege aka even i know it.

i’ve def dragged this thread down but i’m so disrtessed by this crisis when profoundly disarming usa is the answer that makes real sense and cannot happen soon.

Oh for sure, the major factor in driving gun control in the '70s was fear of Black men with guns. As a right-wing friend of mine loves to point out every time the issue comes up.

(Same guy also always points out Margaret Sanger was a racist, of course.)

i’ve got a good judge friend and when i read about https://www.npr.org/2020/11/19/936783691/judge-esther-salas-remembers-the-night-of-assailants-attack-on-her-family i freak out a bit. won’t mention it to him, but FUCK

I also actually have a judge friend (a former judge now) who was directly threatened in a country song that a disgruntled defendant put up on YouTube. That turned out to be a mistake, because threatening specific judges by name even in a country song is not protected by the First Amendment. But it definitely freaked out my friend a bit.

Reagan also turned against assault rifles and the NRA out of office; I have a vague memory of a column published under his name in the early '90s that caused a stir. Too fucking late, though I'm sure it gave bipartisan cover for the 1994 crime bill.

xpost Here's a news story about my friend's case: https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/man-accused-threatening-judge-song-lands-18-months-175339786.html

G Bush disavowed and left NRA publicly in mid 90’s

yep

‘jack booted thugs’

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html

hell I didn't even know about this:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FURWX-xXwAQEgzs?format=jpg&name=large

huh, oh yeah.

Well, getting shot sometimes makes you anti-gun.

Sincerely,
Two Republicans and an Evangelical Southern Christian

"We got published in the L.A. Times! Cheers, bitches!"

https://l450v.alamy.com/450v/2aww818/four-presidents-reagan-carter-ford-nixon-1981-2aww818.jpg

clinton's federal assault weapons ban was a joke btw. so specific that it was easy for manufacturers to make minor changes and get around it.

Sure! We know. But it still minimized the number of mass shootings till Columbine.

The Supreme Court's first opinion of the day is George v. McDonough. In a 6–3 decision, the court rules against veterans seeking benefits claims.

Barrett writes the majority opinion. There will be more to come.https://t.co/lGrDXXpgXb pic.twitter.com/A3JfOtr9eW

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 15, 2022

Will there ever be a NOT 6-3 ruling in the near future?

(Sorry, I guess in this case Kagan and Gorsuch swapped ideological sides.)

that case seems very specific

Gorsuch joined the libs in dissent, though Kagan sided with the majority.

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas is a very complicated case, but a practical upshot is that the tribe gets to offer electronic bingo at its casinos, despite Texas' efforts to shut it down.

Gorsuch once again rules in favor of tribal sovereignty. https://t.co/IAcOOMcZtN pic.twitter.com/GHzcWLOgrZ

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 15, 2022

About the only thing he cares about besides Ayn Rand.

Will there ever be a NOT 6-3 ruling in the near future?

― Eggs Benedick (Eric H.), Wednesday, 15 June 2022 14:03 (fifty-four minutes ago) link

(Sorry, I guess in this case Kagan and Gorsuch swapped ideological sides.)

― Eggs Benedick (Eric H.), Wednesday, 15 June 2022 14:04 (fifty-three minutes ago) link

that case seems very specific

― aegis philbin (crüt), Wednesday, 15 June 2022 14:15 (forty-two minutes ago) link

There are a lot of cases that are highly specific and/or not related to an ideologically hot-button issue that people just don't pay much attention to, so I don't think every case is going to be 6-3 along ideological lines by any means.

About the only thing he cares about besides Ayn Rand.

Of the six rulings today, two were unanimous, one was 8-1 (and that one was Thomas).

The final ruling is a bit unclear but seems to be a straight dismissal (with only conservative justices specifically listed but favoring San Francisco over Texas on an immigration dispute so go figure).

If a state passed a law refusing to recognize the Supreme Court this court would probably uphold their right to do so

Hush! Don't give them any ideas.

Some criticisms of Biden nominee to the 5th Circuit. There has been a vacancy for a year and he just nominated a centrist corporate attorney who became a magistrate (who is a Black woman)

Joe Biden just nominated an oil-and-gas attorney to the 5th Circuit. https://t.co/KQCPLUteCT

— Flushing Bridal Shop Worker (@OrganizingPow3r) June 15, 2022

David Dayen, American Prospect editor in chief , retweeted the above and his publication published its own criticism of some Biden judicial nominations

Joe Biden's pro-worker self-perception has not extended to his judicial nominations, particularly in the critical D.C. Circuit. He'll have another chance, as a vacancy was just announced. Here's @molly_coleman and Tristan Brown on the situation:https://t.co/aqzDqz9bZm

— David Dayen (@ddayen) June 13, 2022

if Barrett gets MRSA from an infected cilice wound and Thomas dies because God is just, 6-3 can become 5-4 real quick

NEW: Jan. 6 Select Committee Chair Bennie Thompson says they will request testimony from Ginni Thomas in light of the Eastman emails.

“We think it’s time that we, at some point, invite her to come talk to the committee.”

— Andrew Solender (@AndrewSolender) June 16, 2022

make sure the metal detector is working that day

So what happens when the wife of a SC justice (the literal rule of law, in this case) tells the committee to fuck off? (I mean, nothing will happen, but still.)

Lots of stories about Hunter Biden come out, I'd imagine

Clarence is going to coach her to say things like "I truly believed", "at the time, things were unclear", "the intent was peaceful protest", all innocuous plausible deniability shit.

Second SCOTUS ruling is a good one! US v. Taylor. Whether an unsuccessful attempted robbery counts as a "crime of violence" under a statute that makes "crimes of violence" punished severely.
7-2 Court says "NO." Written by Gorsuch. Thomas and Alito dissent.

— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) June 21, 2022

One thing to understand about Thomas's jurisprudence is that he basically thinks the government shouldn't be allowed to do anything other than murder criminals or (lately) murder innocent people suspected of crime. His dissent today keeps on with that tradition.

— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) June 21, 2022

This is kind of a fun case (in a law nerd way) because we're dealing with whether an "attempted" robbery counts as violence. Can we really know if "violence" was part of it since the robbery never happened?
Gorsuch says "Who knows?" and Thomas says "I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS"

— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) June 21, 2022