Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) SCOTUS

[Crafty_Dog]

Noted.  TY.

[Body-by-Guinness]

23 states and DC support the Biden side of the argument in Missouri v. Biden:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/23-democrat-states-district-columbia-file-amicus-briefs/?fbclid=IwAR0Ai7JkNWxx3eet_35nBjHG2vCKkmBH4JuPSAuaiiEoFGHNA0ku5MCruY8

Shameful, unconstitutional behavior.

[Crafty_Dog]

A case of primal importance.

[ccp]

for being originalists instead of textualists.

(and of course, the Conservative justices  )


from far far left wing rag DNYUZ:
 
https://dnyuz.com/2024/03/18/justice-breyer-off-the-bench-sounds-an-alarm-over-the-supreme-courts-direction/

yet, some interesting (to me who knows little about such matters) about textualism vs originalism

This also noteworthy:

"Justice Breyer retired a little reluctantly, under pressure from liberals who wanted to make sure that President Biden could appoint his successor and that the conservative supermajority on the court, currently at 6 to 3, would not get any more lopsided."

[Body-by-Guinness]

District Court Judgment in 303 Creative v. Elenis (the Wedding Web Site Design Case)
The Volokh Conspiracy / by Eugene Volokh / Mar 28, 2024 at 5:45 PM

Following the Supreme Court's remand to the Tenth Circuit, which in turn led to the remand to district court, Chief Judge Philip Brimmer (D. Colo.) rendered the following order Tuesday:

It is ORDERED that plaintiffs are the prevailing parties in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). Plaintiffs and their counsel are entitled to recover their reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses for work related to litigation before the district court. It is further

ORDERED that the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause prohibits Colorado from enforcing the Accommodation Clause of Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act ("CADA"), Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(2)(a)), to compel plaintiffs to create custom websites celebrating or depicting same-sex weddings or otherwise create or depict original, expressive, graphic or website designs inconsistent with her beliefs regarding same-sex marriage. It is further

ORDERED that the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause prohibits Colorado from enforcing CADA's Communication Clause to prevent plaintiffs from posting the following statement on her website or from making materially similar statements on her website and directly to prospective clients:

I firmly believe that God is calling me to this work. Why? I am personally convicted that He wants me – during these uncertain times for those who believe in biblical marriage – to shine His light and not stay silent. He is calling me to stand up for my faith, to explain His true story about marriage, and to use the talents and business He gave me to publicly proclaim and celebrate His design for marriage as a life-long union between one man and one woman.

These same religious convictions that motivate me also prevent me from creating websites promoting and celebrating ideas or messages that violate my beliefs. So I will not be able to create websites for same-sex marriages or any other marriage that is not between one man and one woman. Doing that would compromise my Christian witness and tell a story about marriage that contradicts God's true story of marriage – the very story He is calling me to promote.

It is further ORDERED that defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those acting in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order are permanently enjoined from enforcing:

[a.] CADA's Accommodations Clause to compel plaintiffs to create custom websites celebrating or depicting same-sex weddings or otherwise to create or depict original, expressive, graphic or website designs inconsistent with her beliefs regarding same-sex marriage; and

[b.] CADA's Communication Clause to prevent plaintiffs from posting the above statement on her website and from making materially similar statements on her website and directly to prospective clients….

For more on the reasoning, see the full order. The quick summary of the underlying factual dispute:

Plaintiff Lorie Smith, through her business, plaintiff 303 Creative LLC …, offers a variety of creative services, including website design, to the public. Ms. Smith intends to expand the scope of 303 Creative's services to include the design, creation, and publication of wedding websites. However, plaintiffs will decline any request to design, create, or promote content that promotes any conception of marriage other than marriage between one man and one woman. Plaintiffs have designed an addition to 303 Creative's website that includes a statement that they will not create websites "celebrating same-sex marriages or any other marriage that contradicts God's design for marriage."

The post District Court Judgment in 303 Creative v. Elenis (the Wedding Web Site Design Case) appeared first on Reason.com.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/28/district-court-judgment-in-303-creative-v-elenis-the-wedding-web-site-design-case/

[DougMacG]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/16/opinions/justice-sonia-sotomayor-retire-reyes/index.html

She's in her 60s (69).  The President who would pick her replacement is in his 80s.  Schumer and Durbin are nearly that. Her mom lived into her 90s.  She lives with Type 1 diabetes. Minchin and Sinema are not reliable votes.

What part of lifetime appointment don't they understand.

[DougMacG]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor:  “I’m not sure I understand the distinction why the states would have the power [to institute a mandate such as  OSHA’s], but the federal government wouldn’t,”

Tenth Amendment: “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/justice-sotomayor-claims-not-to-understand-the-distinction-between-state-and-federal-powers/

[Crafty_Dog]

Back when I was teaching Constitutional Law at UNC Pembroke I had our class spend quite a bit of time on a 5th Circuit Case that grappled with precisely this question.

Doug is 100% correct, the "Police Power", which includes health matters was not granted to the Feds and thus, per the Tenth, pertains to the States.

The problem is the unsound jurisprudence surrounding the Interstate Commerce Clause-- the idea being that pandemics affect Interstate Commerce.

There is an additional layer here regarding Separation of Powers-- here OSHA was acting in a quasi-legislative manner which presents the C'l question as to whether its enabling statute granted it such, and even if it did, was it C'ly permissable- i.e. was an intelligible limiting principle whose articulation could enable meaningful judicial review of this question when presented.

[ccp]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-restores-louisiana-voting-map-with-majority-black-district/ar-BB1msdEn?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=5524c6d503254e119e375df6ee83c6f5&ei=21

[ccp]

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2024/05/22/blumenthal-alito-is-unfit-to-serve-at-a-minimum-he-must-recuse-from-all-trump-cases/

Me:

MAGA

could read =

PATRIOT

The LEFT uses MAGA as some sort of derogatory label.

As always they steal the language and distort its' meaning.

To them MAGA = nazi
To me MAGA = American Patriot

screw them.

Bottom line:
being a patriot is NOT a disqualification for SCOTUS
anymore then being a Democrat is
think all the libs who are and have been on SCOTUS.
Should we disqualify them?

[Crafty_Dog]

"Upon further reading, Locke and his philosophical progeny understood the "laws of nature" are the moral law that God plainly reveals to all of humanity and can be discerned through reason, and without religious observance."

From a pleasant conversation on another forum.   The reference to "the Laws of Nature" is from our Declaration of Independence's phrase "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God".

[Crafty_Dog]

I disagree with this due to lack of present day talent and doubts about ability to prevent runaway horseshit, but share it here in the interest of convesation:

file:///C:/Users/craft/Downloads/ConventionofStatesSummary.pdf

[Crafty_Dog]

NYT Scoop: Alito Is an 'Insurrectionist'
The Supreme Court justice has faced attacks over a couple of flag displays at his homes.

Nate Jackson


Democrats need to delegitimize the Supreme Court so they can eventually pack it with loyal leftists. Keep that in mind every time they attack Clarence Thomas over a vacation or Samuel Alito over a flag.

The latter justice has been the subject of leftist consternation for the last week or so, ever since The New York Times put a team of crack journalists on the case of a couple of flags flown by the Alito family.

First up was a breathless story drawing a straight line from Justice Alito to January 6. "At Justice Alito's House, a 'Stop the Steal' Symbol on Display," read the Times headline, followed by the teaser, "An upside-down flag, adopted by Trump supporters contesting the Biden victory, flew over the justice's front lawn as the Supreme Court was considering an election case."

The story didn't use the word "insurrectionists" (or, as Joe Biden recently called them, "erectionists"), but the Times insists the connection was clear: "The upside-down flag was aloft on Jan. 17, 2021, the images showed. President Donald J. Trump's supporters, including some brandishing the same symbol, had rioted at the Capitol a little over a week before."

Never mind that Alito was on the losing side of that election case, meaning the flag had no bearing on the outcome of the case.

More importantly, "I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag," Justice Alito said in an emailed statement to The Times. "It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs."

Shannon Bream of Fox News shares what the Times didn't tell you:

I spoke directly with Justice Alito about the flag story in the NYT. In addition to what's in the story, he told me a neighbor on their street had a "F*** Trump" sign that was within 50 feet of where children await the school bus in Jan 21. Mrs. Alito brought this up with the neighbor. According to Justice Alito, things escalated and the neighbor put up a sign personally addressing Mrs. Alito and blaming her for the Jan 6th attacks.

So, where did the "Stop the Steal" connection come from? An "expert" cited by the Times called an upside-down flag "the equivalent of putting a 'Stop the Steal' sign in your yard."

Oh, so it's a dog whistle for "experts."

The truth is that an upside-down flag has long been understood as a sign of distress.

A few days later, the Times put three journalists on another story about a "provocative flag" flown by the Alitos: "The justice's beach house displayed an 'Appeal to Heaven' flag, a symbol carried on Jan. 6 and associated with a push for a more Christian-minded government." The Times spends much of its word count in both articles discussing ethics rules for jurists, though none of those rules apply to spouses.

This flag appeared at the Long Beach Island house in 2023, but it, too, sounded the same dog whistle for "Stop the Steal."

Senator Dick Durbin called it part of "the Court's ongoing ethical crisis." Senator Mazie Hirono wailed, "We have an out-of-control Supreme Court majority." Clearly, the real game here is to delegitimize the Court. Senator Jeff Merkley literally said it: "Frustration with the Court in the sense that it is illegitimate is extremely high."

The long-term objective is delegitimizing the Court, but the short-term aim is winning a couple of cases. "Alito must recuse himself immediately from cases related to the 2020 election and the January 6th insurrection," Durbin insisted. He didn't say it, but these hit pieces are also retribution for Alito having written the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

The Democrats attempt to smear and discredit every originalist, and they have been doing so since Ted Kennedy made a sick sport out of "borking" nominees to the bench. Alito was the victim of that same vile tactic in 2006, which left Mrs. Alito in tears at the time.

Furthermore, call me crazy, but it's pretty rich for leftists to be outraged about flags. They burn the American flag, for one thing, in addition to kneeling instead of saluting it during the national anthem. Spare me the outrage over flying it upside down.

They also plaster rainbow flags over almost literally everything (including the American flag) for large parts of the year, especially "Pride Month," which — I appeal to heaven! — starts in a few days. Last year in June, Joe Biden flew the garish transgender flag from the White House itself — while some dude flashed his prosthetic breasts on the lawn, I might add. Biden's State Department flies the rainbow flag at its facilities all over the world (except in Muslim countries).

"The Constitution provides that the government shall not establish any official religion," opined Senator Brian Schatz, but the rainbow flag is arguably a symbol of the Left's state religion. But the Times reporters have their knickers in a twist over a Revolutionary-era flag.

The "Appeal to Heaven" flag, by the way, originates with an important American named George Washington. Maybe the Times reporters have heard of him. He specifically commissioned it in 1775, and it was designed by his personal secretary, Colonel Joseph Reed. In a sense, it was the symbol of a real insurrection — the one against the British tyrants who overtaxed and tried to disarm American colonists. Come to think of it, that sounds familiar...