Author Topic: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) SCOTUS  (Read 709062 times)

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3225
    • View Profile
Biden Abandons Constitutional Norms
« Reply #1950 on: July 31, 2024, 10:55:50 AM »
His SCOTUS proposals are so undefined they could suggest numerous courses, albeit any direction is sure to be informed by "Progressive" passions:

https://thedispatch.com/article/what-ever-happened-to-judicial-independence/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile
WSJ; Term Limits a Waste of Wisdom
« Reply #1951 on: August 01, 2024, 06:19:15 AM »


Supreme Court Term Limits Are a Waste of Wisdom
Justices Brandeis, Black, Harlan and Holmes did some of their best work in later years.
By Nathan Lewin
July 31, 2024 12:32 pm ET


It’s easy to make a legalistic case against President Biden’s proposal to impose 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices. History, however, can be the most persuasive teacher. If Mr. Biden’s folly had always been the law of the land, we wouldn’t have some of our wisest jurists’ most compelling judgments.

The first John Marshall Harlan was in his 19th year as a justice in 1896 when he dissented from the court’s blunder in Plessy v. Ferguson, which approved separate railway accommodations “for the white and colored races.” In a lone dissent, he declared that “our Constitution is color-blind.”

Oliver Wendell Holmes took his Supreme Court seat in 1902. Twenty-one years later he dissented in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, a decision that nullified a federal law prescribing minimum wages for women employed in the District of Columbia.

Hugo Black completed his 18th year on the high court in 1955. Sixteen years later, he issued a passionate defense of a free press in New York Times Co. v. U.S. (1971), the Pentagon Papers case. The Founding Fathers, he wrote, intended that the press “serve the governed, not the governors.”

Louis Brandeis may have written his most memorable defenses of personal liberty in his early years on the bench, alongside Holmes. Yet he is sealed in every lawyer’s mind for his majority opinion in Erie Railroad v. Tompkins (1938), decided in his 22nd year as a justice, which reversed an almost century-old rule that had governed litigation in federal courts.

One genius of our Constitution is its recognition of varying terms for federal office-holders. Articles I and II prescribe that representatives be elected for two years, presidents for four and senators for six. Article III specifies that all officials exercising the federal “judicial power”—“both of the supreme and inferior courts”—retain their authority “during good behaviour.” That is, for life.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78 that the judiciary was “the weakest of the three departments.” He also warned that “periodical appointments” of federal judges would “be fatal to their necessary independence,” and that judges shouldn’t have “too great a disposition to consult popularity.” Experience on the bench generates wisdom that term limits would swiftly eradicate.

Mr. Lewin is a Washington lawyer with a Supreme Court practice.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19435
    • View Profile
Re: rumor headline Alito might retire
« Reply #1953 on: August 01, 2024, 09:42:22 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/samuel-alito-thinking-about-retirement-report/ar-BB1r0Kq9?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=6d659e73419541068ad46ae8e82bdc27&ei=11

don't know if true but if it is -> :x

Not true I hope.  If we get a Republican president and senate, that could free up all six of them to consider their options.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile
Charlie Kirk
« Reply #1956 on: August 19, 2024, 08:15:09 AM »
I would have preferred "Judeo-Christian" over "Jesus", but the fundamentals of the discussion here are deep and correct.   Lots of inconvenient truths!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6R_-AvCUsQ



Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3225
    • View Profile
History of US Arms Bans
« Reply #1959 on: August 29, 2024, 01:50:02 PM »
Interesting for the historical context, if nothing else:

[David Kopel] The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900
The Volokh Conspiracy / by David Kopel / Aug 28, 2024 at 1:45 PM
 Bowie knife | Knife Magazine
[Restrictions on carry, minors, and misuse were the norm -- not bans]

Controversial arms are nothing new in the United States. During the 19th century, there were widespread concerns about criminal use of arms such a Bowie knives, slungshots, blackjacks, and brass knuckles. The full history of state, territorial, and colonial laws about controversial arms is detailed in my recent article for Notre Dame's Journal of Legislation, The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900, coauthored with Joseph Greenlee.

Because the article is thorough, it is enormous: 163 pages of text, and 1,563 footnotes. The student staff for volume 50 of the Journal of Legislation was spectacular. Not every law journal has staff who could handle such a megillah, let alone a staff that whose meticulous cite-check would improve the article.

The mainstream American approach to controls of the above arms were: 1. bans on concealed carry; 2. limits on sales to minors, such as requiring parental permission; and 3. extra penalties for misuse in a crime. Sales bans were the minority approach, and possession bans very rare.

From 1607 through 1899, sales bans for nonfirearm arms were:

Bowie knife. Sales bans in Georgia, Tennessee, and later in Arkansas. Georgia ban held to violate the Second Amendment. Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846).
Prohibitive transfer or occupational vendor taxes in Alabama and Florida, which were repealed. Personal property taxes at levels high enough to discourage possession by poor people in Mississippi, Alabama, and North Carolina.
Dirk (a type of fighting knife). Georgia (1837) (held to violate Second Amendment); Arkansas (1881).
Sword cane (a sword concealed in a walking stick). Georgia (1837), held to violate the Second Amendment. Arkansas (1881).
Slungshot or "colt" (most typically, a lead weight held in the tip of a flexible bludgeon). Sales bans in nine states or territories. The Kentucky ban was later repealed. Illinois also banned possession.
Sand club or blackjack. New York (1881), (1884), (1889), (1899).
Billy. New York (1881), (1884), (1889), (1899).
Metallic knuckles. Sales bans in eight states, later repealed in Kentucky. Illinois also banned possession.
Cannons. No bans. Restrictions on discharge without permission in a variety of municipalities.
American bans on possession or sale to adults of particular types of firearms were:

Georgia (1837), all handguns except horse pistols. Held unconstitutional in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846).
Tennessee (1879) and Arkansas (1881). Bans on sales of concealable handguns. Based on militia-centric interpretations of the state constitutions, the laws did not ban the largest and most powerful revolvers, namely those like the Army or Navy models.
Florida (1893). Discretionary licensing and an exorbitant licensing fee for carry of repeating rifles. Extended to handguns in 1901. The law was "never intended to be applied to the white population" and "conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested." Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516 (1941) (Buford, J., concurring).
Earlier this month, the en banc Fourth Circuit, by a 10-5 vote, upheld Maryland's ban on common rifles dubbed "assault weapons." Judge Wilkinson's majority opinion cited the article 16 times, and Judge Richardson's dissent cited it 9 times. Bianchi v. Brown, 2024 WL 3666180 (4th Cir. 2024) (en banc).

The article has also been cited in three U.S. District Court opinions supporting the claims of Second Amendment plaintiffs. Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Platkin, 2024 WL 3585580 (D.N.J. July 30, 2024); Miller v. Bonta, 699 F.Supp.3d 956, 981 n.86, 987 n.107 (S.D. Cal. 2023); Duncan v. Bonta, 695 F.Supp.3d 1206, 1242 n.177 (S.D. Cal. 2023). And in a Third Circuit dissent disagreeing with Second Amendment claims. Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police, 91 F.4th 122, 144-45, 147 (3d Cir. 2024) (Restrepo, J., dissenting).

As the cites indicate, judges can disagree about how strictly or broadly to draw historical analogies, and about what sorts of laws create an established tradition at a given level of generality. It is at least helpful, I hope, that judges can have access to a common set of facts about the historical regulation of controversial arms.

The post The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900 appeared first on Reason.com.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/28/the-history-of-bans-on-types-of-arms-before-1900-2/

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19742
    • View Profile
LEFT wing article : democracy doomed if we don't fix SCOTUS
« Reply #1960 on: September 04, 2024, 07:25:21 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinion-our-democracy-is-depending-on-a-supreme-court-fix-and-we-re-running-out-of-time/ar-AA1pYUiB?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=a5514b57154e419993d3266ee96ca197&ei=12

funny
the left always screams "where is the proof": from us.

yet show *me* the proof any SCOTUS decision was influenced by "shady" dealings.

come on shysters - where is the proof you always demand from us?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19435
    • View Profile
Re: LEFT wing article : democracy doomed if we don't fix SCOTUS
« Reply #1961 on: September 04, 2024, 07:40:29 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinion-our-democracy-is-depending-on-a-supreme-court-fix-and-we-re-running-out-of-time/ar-AA1pYUiB?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=a5514b57154e419993d3266ee96ca197&ei=12

funny
the left always screams "where is the proof": from us.

yet show *me* the proof any SCOTUS decision was influenced by "shady" dealings.

come on shysters - where is the proof you always demand from us?

They attack the Court by lying about the decisions.

Dobbs didn't end abortion, it sent a divisive political issue back to the states where it belongs.

The immunity decision didn't make all acts of a President immune from the law.  It makes 'Presidential acts', not personal acts, immune from prosecution.

80% of recent Supreme Court decisions are unanimous.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-unanimity-is-fleeting-with-tougher-cases-looming-37

The voting block within the Court that sticks together the most are the center three.

Funny they don't tell you any of that when they attack the Court.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19742
    • View Profile
Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) SCOTUS
« Reply #1962 on: September 04, 2024, 08:11:03 AM »
" The immunity decision didn't make all acts of a President immune from the law.  It makes 'Presidential acts', not personal acts, immune from prosecution. "

funny you bring this up.  last night during my dog walk I was thinking how Larry Tribe shysters will be arguing till they are gangrenous in the face what is a Presidential act vs not official duty in trying to subvert or sidewind this.

if there is a way to get Trump
Tribe et al will find it.

besides they are making a fortune in legal fees - maybe not Tribe though.  Can or is he billing as a Harvard prof for side work?  I don't know.   Dershowitz does so I guess Tribe does too.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile
WSJ: Justice Jackson vs. Separation of Powers
« Reply #1963 on: September 05, 2024, 02:34:42 PM »


Justice Jackson’s ‘Enforceable’ Ethics Code
The Justice gives encouragement to partisans who want to politicize the Supreme Court.
By The Editorial Board
Sept. 3, 2024 5:41 pm ET


Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who’s on a media tour for her new memoir, has thrown her support behind the idea, at least in theory, of an enforceable Supreme Court ethics code. “A binding code of ethics is pretty standard for judges,” Justice Jackson told CBS. “I guess I have not seen a persuasive reason as to why the Court is different than the other courts.”

She cautioned that she was discussing this as a “general matter,” not endorsing any specific plan: “I’m not going to get into commenting on particular policy proposals, but from my perspective I don’t have any problem with an enforceable code.” This is cagey, and we’d suggest that Justice Jackson look more closely at the political pressure her endorsement may help to unleash.

One difference between the High Court and the lower courts is that there are only nine Justices. Any unnecessary recusal on the Supreme Court can end up being effectively a vote against one of the parties. Winning the case means convincing at least five Justices. A shorthanded Court can split 4-4, which leaves a lower-court ruling in place but without any definitive settlement.

The Supreme Court is also enumerated in the Constitution, and it isn’t a creature of Congress. It would implicate the separation of powers for lawmakers to attempt to impose a detailed set of ethics and recusal rules on the Justices from the outside, as Democrats have been demanding.

Another difference is that the High Court is a frequent target of political attacks, and an “enforceable” ethics code would quickly be turned into another instrument of partisan warfare that would harm the independence of the Court. Justice Jackson reported on a disclosure form this summer that the singer Beyonce gave her four concert tickets worth $3,711.84. Unless Beyonce is coming before the Supreme Court for some reason, it’s hard to fathom how this poses any real ethical conflict.

Yet the same is true of gifts reported by the conservative Justices, which hasn’t stopped the smear campaigns. The newest Justice may think she’s pleasing Democrats and the press on ethics, but we doubt she’d like the result.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3225
    • View Profile
The Old Gray Hag Now Gunning for Roberts
« Reply #1964 on: September 16, 2024, 09:26:47 AM »
NYT misconstrues constitutional issues for political ones while tipping their hand they have a source privy to SCOTUS deliberations:

John Roberts Gets His Turn in the Progressive Dock

Leaks from inside the Supreme Court target the Chief Justice in the Trump cases.

By
The Editorial Board

Sept. 15, 2024 at 5:22 pm ET

Journal Editorial Report: Trump and Harris campaigns chase undecideds. Photo: Imago/Zuma Press
The political attacks on the Supreme Court are escalating, and the latest is aimed squarely at Chief Justice John Roberts. It comes in a Sunday story in the New York Times fueled by leaks about internal Court deliberations.

The story’s theme is that in three cases last term the Chief steered the Court to help Donald Trump: “How Roberts Shaped Trump’s Supreme Court Winning Streak.” It is slanted in the way readers have come to expect from the Times, minimizing the constitutional arguments in the cases and highlighting the political benefit to Mr. Trump. The piece spins the cases from the legal and political view of critics, notably Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the member of the Court who has been most nonplussed in public about her status as a losing Justice in many constitutional decisions.

Most striking, and damaging to the comity at the Court, are leaks about the internal discussions among the Justices. The story describes a memo from the Chief to fellow Justices in February 2022 recommending that the Justices accept the appeal over presidential immunity, as well as follow-up notes from Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch.

Also leaked is an account of the private conversation among the Justices after an oral argument. This is a betrayal of confidence that will affect how the Justices do their work. It’s arguably worse than the leak of the draft opinion in Dobbs, the 2022 abortion case. That leaker still hasn’t been identified, but it was probably a clerk or functionary at the Court. This leak bears the possible fingerprints of one or more of the Justices.

***
The intent is clearly to tarnish the Court as political, and hit the Chief in particular. This is strange on its face since John Roberts is hardly some Trumpian partisan. He has openly criticized Mr. Trump for assailing judges whose rulings the former President didn’t like. Everything we know about the Chief suggests he would have hated to be drawn into what we have called “the Trump docket.”

But the Court had little choice after Democrats used the legal system against Mr. Trump. The Court was obliged to take the cases as they marched up the appellate chain. Democrats politicize the law against a candidate of the opposing party, and then they claim to be shocked because the Supreme Court does its duty to rule on the legality of what they are doing.

Recall the cases. Trump v. Anderson concerned a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court barring Mr. Trump from the ballot under a reading of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. How could the U.S. Supreme Court not hear that appeal? The ruling against the Colorado court was 9-0, with some concurring caveats.

Fischer v. U.S., about the prosecution of some who rioted on Jan. 6, 2021, was also important to take up, given the way prosecutors stretched the Sarbanes-Oxley statute. The ruling isn’t central to the Trump prosecutions in any case, and the 6-3 majority included a concurring opinion from liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The ruling on presidential immunity (Trump v. U.S.) was impossible to dodge, unless the Court was willing to ignore the case’s impact on the separation of powers and its own precedent. The Court had ruled in 1982 in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that a president is immune from civil suits regarding his official actions.

The Court properly declined special counsel Jack Smith’s request to take the case on accelerated appeal, giving the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals the chance to rule first. But that three-judge panel wrote one of the worst opinions in that court’s history, which ignored Nixon v. Fitzgerald as well as the impact on future Presidents. The appellate ruling essentially said Mr. Trump could be indicted because he’s Donald Trump.

The Supreme Court couldn’t let that ruling stand because it would have been used to justify criminal charges against future Presidents for their official acts. The Justices had to weigh in on the constitutional merits. The Chief’s opinion protected the Presidency from partisans who would seek to criminalize official acts such as drone strikes against enemies of the U.S., while saying a President can still be prosecuted for acts that break the law that are unrelated to his duties as President.

Democrats hate the ruling because they say it gives too much power to Presidents and will delay Mr. Smith’s prosecution of Mr. Trump past this year’s Election Day. But this would not have happened if Mr. Smith, backed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, hadn’t broken historical precedent by prosecuting a former President. Because Democrats think the highest political cause of the moment is defeating Donald Trump, they don’t mind traducing other political norms, and that includes trashing the separation of powers and the Supreme Court.

***
The story in the Times is part of a larger progressive political campaign to damage the credibility of the Court to justify Democratic legislation that will destroy its independence. That this campaign may have picked up allies inside the Court is all the more worrying. We are at a dangerous juncture in American constitutional history, and Mr. Trump isn’t the only, or the greatest, risk.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/john-roberts-gets-his-turn-in-the-progressive-dock-nyt-trump-2894b5da?st=DgXF7H

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile
WT: SCOTUS this term
« Reply #1965 on: October 07, 2024, 04:43:15 AM »


Justices to weigh minors’ health, safety in new term

By Alex Swoyer THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Supreme Court has teed up a series of disputes addressing health and safety issues for minors for its upcoming term, which kicks off Monday.

The justices might not have a particular theme in mind while opening the 2024-2025 term, but their agreement to consider at least three key cases dealing with the protection of children is remarkable.

They’ll hear cases dealing with transgender minor surgeries, age verification to access porn online and federal requirements against marketing flavored vapes to prevent young people from smoking.

“It shows you some of the issues society as a whole are trying to deal with right now, which is why we are getting a lot of laws and regulations that are touching on those issues,” said Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network. “How can we best protect our children?”

“It is certainly true that a lot of regulations whether it is stuff that is directed at transgender issues or whether it is health and safety material is directed at minors and it is often an important justification that is used for that kind of regulation or legislation,” said Elliot

During the new Supreme Court term, the justices will hear a case on flavored vapes and marketing to young people.

ASSOCIATED PRESS

Mincberg, senior fellow at People For the American Way. “So, it is not a surprise that a number of the cases taken by the court relate to that.”

The justices are set to rule in the coming months on whether a state ban on puberty blockers and transgender surgeries for minors is lawful.

The issue is what court watchers say is currently the top case of the term so far. A date for oral arguments on the dispute, U.S. v. Skrmetti, has not been set, but it already has become a major battleground.

The Department of Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union oppose Tennessee’s ban on the treatments for minors over concerns about safety and health.

The ACLU said courts have rejected those types of prohibitions on medical treatment for transgender youths in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana and Kentucky.

But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed Tennessee’s ban to take effect.

The Tennessee case was brought by three transgender minors, their parents and a doctor who had 16 transgender youths as patients who are challenging the ban.

In addition, the justices will weigh in on whether certain states’ efforts to ensure that minors can’t access pornography on the internet are constitutional.

The high court will decide in Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton whether Texas can bar minors from pornography on the internet by requiring users to enter personal identification information to prove their age. A lower court sided with the state, prompting the free speech group to appeal.

The lawsuit, which has not had an oral argument date set, centers on Texas H.B. 1181, which requires pornography companies to have age verification measures for users to access their sites. Users have to prove they are adults by showing identification or other methods.

The state’s goal was to deter the flow of adult images and materials to children. A company that violates the state’s requirement could face civil fines of more than $10,000.

The Free Speech Coalition challenged the law, saying the age verification process infringes on adult use of pornographic sites by requiring too much personal information and runs afoul of the First Amendment.

Additionally, the justices will address federal restrictions on advertising flavored vapes to avoid marketing to youth.

In Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments LLC, dba Triton Distribution, et al., the FDA has denied marketing authorization for flavored e-cigarettes or vapes by Triton Distribution.

The company said the flavors would help adults switch to its products and away from traditional cigarettes, but the FDA said the flavors would attract minors and pose risks to public health.

A lower court sided against the FDA’s denial of the company’s marketing authorization, prompting the government to appeal to the high court.

The first arguments of the term on Monday involve a group of Alabama residents attempting to sue the state over delaying their application for unemployment benefits, and another case over moving a state court case to federal court.

On Tuesday, the justices will hear one of the court’s most tracked disputes this term. It relates to the regulation of ghost guns.

In Merrick Garland v. Jennifer VanDerStok, the justices will consider the government’s regulations on ghost guns — firearms that can be assembled at home and lack serial numbers.

The Biden administration asked the justices to review the case after a federal appellate court struck down a regulation on the sale of kits to make ghost guns, saying it stretched the definition of “firearm” in the Gun Control Act of 1968.

The administration in 2022 announced a regulation that reinterpreted the 1968 law to cover the kits. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has long considered frames or receivers that could be made operable with a few quick alterations to be firearms. The government argued that the kits fall under that category.

The ATF’s rule was challenged by gun rights groups and companies that sell the kits. The groups won an injunction at the lower court level, but the Supreme Court put it on hold while the litigation is pending, allowing the rule to take effect.

The justices could decide during this term to take up two major disputes dealing with laws out of Idaho and West Virginia that ban transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports in B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education and Hecox v. Little.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against West Virginia’s law that would require transgender girls to compete on boys or co-ed teams. A transgender student challenged the law, and the 4th Circuit sided with her.

Meanwhile, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals halted Idaho from enforcing its Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which bases sports participation on biological sex.

Similar to the West Virginia law, a transgender student wishing to run track at Boise State University challenged the law as running afoul of the 14th Amendment.

The justices could also agree to hear Hile v. Michigan, which deals with state funding going to parochial schools.

The issue of President Biden’s administration moving to eliminate student debt and protect transgender students in schools are percolating in lower courts and could make it to the justices during this 2024-2025 term, which runs from October through June.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also is readying to rule on a law passed by Congress and signed by Mr. Biden that bans TikTok from operating in the U.S. after January. It’s likely that case could come before the justices, too.

Court watchers also predict the high court could face election-related legal battles as Election Day approaches with a tight race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.

“I think we are going to end up getting a lot of the runoff from the election,” said Adam Feldman, Supreme Court scholar and creator of the Empirical SCOTUS blog.

“Every election year there is always one type of big question, especially if it is close — and it looks close,” Ms. Severino said. “It is very likely the court is going to have to answer something.”

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19435
    • View Profile
Re: WT: SCOTUS this term
« Reply #1966 on: October 07, 2024, 09:09:48 AM »
"Justices to weigh minors’ health, safety in new term"

   - Very serious topic because minors cannot vote nor have a direct voice of their own or full control of their own lives at the most vulnerable, developing stage.  (Sort of like the unborn.)


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19742
    • View Profile
The LEFT battering SCOTUS
« Reply #1967 on: October 11, 2024, 08:50:58 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/shaken-analyst-claims-john-roberts-has-been-left-reeling-from-immunity-ruling-backlash/ar-AA1s6s40?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=093c7b3caf964b4dbe32ed0d1f32cd52&ei=13

The LEFT

Justice Roberts "cluelessness" by applying the Constitution to legal interpretation as opposed to the wishes of the DNC/Left machine is the reasoning.

This could go into civil war thread,  lawfare thread, or media thread.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile
Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) SCOTUS
« Reply #1968 on: October 14, 2024, 06:10:56 AM »
Not just Roberts, but the SCOTUS as a whole is very much in danger of being emotionally intimidated.

In convo with Tucker on Tucker's channel, Sen. Mike Lee, a serious C'l guy, spoke very well about the deep consequences of the "stitch in time that saved the nine" case.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3225
    • View Profile
When is it Appropriate to Censor?
« Reply #1969 on: November 01, 2024, 01:35:26 PM »
I’m working my way through the whole piece, but this intro does a good job of outlining its arguments, arguments I’m in full agreement with.

Journal of Free Speech Law: "Should We Trust the Censor?," by Keith E. Whittington
A new article from the Daedalus (Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences) Future of Free Speech Symposium.

EUGENE VOLOKH | 11.1.2024 8:01 AM
The article is here; the Introduction:

In designing and adopting any regulatory scheme, there are two separate but important decisions to make. First, of course, we must decide on the substantive rules or standards that will govern the behavior to be regulated. This is often the most visible and contentious decision to make. Setting out the rule to be enforced is generally viewed as tantamount to setting the policy itself. But there is a second decision that must also be made, perhaps even more consequential than the first. Once we know what rule will be enforced, we must decide who will be empowered to interpret and enforce that rule. After we design the regulation, we must design the regulator. Rules are not usually self-enforcing. Someone will have to determine whether the rule has been violated and what to do in the case of violations. Those two decisions are critical to the success and significance of any regulatory scheme.

In this regard, the regulation of speech is no different than any other regulatory scheme. Changing the context of speech regulation does not change the dilemma. When we lay down a rule about what kinds of speech should be forbidden, we must also decide who will interpret and enforce that rule. Who will decide whether the rule is violated by a particular utterance and therefore whether the speech in question should be suppressed, or the speaker punished?

Moreover, such issues arise whenever we seek to regulate speech. If the government wants to prohibit some speech, it will need a process of enforcing that law or administrative regulation. If the government wants to criminalize "terroristic threats," it will need both to specify the rule against such threats and to rely on a criminal justice process for investigating and prosecuting those who make such threats. If Congress wants to exclude from federal trademark protection marks that are "scandalous" or disparaging, it will need to articulate the exception to trademark law and empower a government official to review trademark proposals and reject those that violate the rule. If the comment section of an online journal excludes some kinds of posts, the publisher will need to specify a rule explaining what content is prohibited and designate a moderator to review and delete posts that potentially offend the rule.

A great deal of theoretical argument on speech restrictions is understandably focused on the substance of potential limitations on speech. The substantive rule is where principled distinctions are drawn and where justifications for or against tolerating some types of speech can be developed. If we want to restrict speech, we need to take great care to ensure that we are restricting the right speech and for the right reasons. Constitutional doctrine and normative theory are focused on such questions as the circumstances in which false speech should be forbidden, how to distinguish obscenity from pornography, and how to distinguish fair use from copyright infringement. Most of our arguments about whether a specific kind of speech should be restricted turn on the question of whether restricting that speech would be a good idea. Does the speech in question have a high or low social value? Does the speech in question cause harms, and if so, how substantial and of what nature? Will censorship make us worse off? Should we rely on the marketplace of ideas to winnow the true from the false, or do we need the thoughtful assistance of the censor?

Those substantive debates on speech restrictions often take the implementation and enforcement of any restrictions for granted. This is understandable but a mistake. The implementation process might pass without remark simply because, at least in broad brush strokes, we think that those decisions are already fixed. If we are debating possible exceptions to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, we are effectively debating how the Supreme Court ought to interpret the First Amendment, and what kinds of legal limits on speech the justices should accept. It is tempting to think that if we can just agree on the acceptable limits on speech, then the implementation of those limits would take care of itself. The details of the enforcement process might seem irrelevant to whether we think a particular type of speech should be outlawed.

I am persuaded, to some degree, by all three of the common liberal defenses of robust speech protections. Free speech is essential to the identification of the truth and the advancement of knowledge, which is particularly relevant to thinking about the scope of speech protections in an academic context. The tolerance of dissent is critical to allowing democratic processes to function, which is especially important in the context of political speech. And free expression is important to respecting human dignity and autonomy, which has particular salience in the context of artistic expression.

Those arguments are important, but they are ultimately not decisive for me. At the very core of my own skepticism about speech restrictions is distrust of those who would wield the power to suppress speech. Even if I were completely convinced that some particular type of speech is of low value and generally harmful, I would be extremely reluctant to agree to a rule prohibiting that speech because I have little faith that speech restrictions would be applied in a manner that did not have serious social costs. Censors would likely be overly aggressive in enforcing speech restrictions and biased in what they judge to be intolerable speech. It is precisely in the context of controversial speech that we will find it difficult to reach uncontroversial conclusions about whether a particular example of speech is beyond the pale. As James Madison pointed out, "if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary"; but the great problem with "framing a government which is to be administered by men over men" is that "you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." Obliging the government to control itself has been particularly challenging in the context of freedom of speech. Even if we could design the ideal speech code, we should not have much faith that it would be implemented in an ideal way.

For me, those concerns about who will watch the watchmen create a very strong presumption against any significant restriction on speech. The long struggle to expand freedom of speech has been to an important degree the result of a dawning realization that censors cannot be trusted and thus the scope of their authority had to be significantly narrowed. I have often found that those who favor more restrictions on the freedom of speech also tend to have more confidence about how those rules will be implemented. If we do not need to worry about the second problem, the problem of implementation, then it becomes easier to imagine that desirable rules might be developed. Those who have faith in administrators tend also to be more willing to endorse speech codes than I am. Even when I can agree that a given example of speech is a net loss for society, I am much more reluctant to take the further step of empowering someone to limit such speech. If I am asked whether we must tolerate the speech of Nazis, I am not overly concerned about the possibility that Nazis might have interesting or illuminating things to say, but I am quite concerned that building the machinery of censorship to suppress the speech of Nazis will prove threatening to speech that is valuable. I would share the view that it would be unfortunate if my fellow citizens found Nazis to be persuasive, but I have trouble imagining who I might trust to make determinations as to which ideas my fellow citizens should be allowed to hear and assess.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/11/01/journal-of-free-speech-law-should-we-trust-the-censor-by-keith-e-whittington/

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3225
    • View Profile
Reconstruction Era Amendments Videos
« Reply #1970 on: November 08, 2024, 10:24:43 AM »
Posted on I can find these vids & view ‘em when I have more time.”

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/11/08/part-vi-slavery-and-the-reconstruction-amendments/