Red Mosquito

Decent recap of the Myriad case:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/04/argum ... he-rescue/

Any particular reason why the Supreme Court declined to hear the New York 2nd Amendment case?

simple schoolboy wrote:Any particular reason why the Supreme Court declined to hear the New York 2nd Amendment case?

i think it's more likely that they hear the 7th Circuit case instead, due to the lenghty feud that Scalia and Posner had over the issue. Have you read much about that?

Green Habit wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:Any particular reason why the Supreme Court declined to hear the New York 2nd Amendment case?

i think it's more likely that they hear the 7th Circuit case instead, due to the lenghty feud that Scalia and Posner had over the issue. Have you read much about that?

Not too much. I guess its unlikely for the 2nd to be extended outside the home, though I'm not sure by what logic they'll come to that conclusion.

simple schoolboy wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:Any particular reason why the Supreme Court declined to hear the New York 2nd Amendment case?

i think it's more likely that they hear the 7th Circuit case instead, due to the lenghty feud that Scalia and Posner had over the issue. Have you read much about that?

Not too much. I guess its unlikely for the 2nd to be extended outside the home, though I'm not sure by what logic they'll come to that conclusion.

Well, Posner and Scalia had a lengthy tit for tat after Scalia released his latest book. I won't bore everyone with the details, it should be easily Googleable. Specifically with guns, Posner joined onto the 7th Circuit's opinion on McDonald v. Chicago (which SCOTUS reversed) and he has been very critical of that reversal. So, in an effort to throw the gauntlet down again at Scalia, in Moore v. Madigan he wrote an opinion finding that the Second Amendment as now interpreted by SCOTUS does include a right outside the home, even though he disagrees strongly with that interpretation. He's basically daring Scalia to go farther than perhaps Scalia would like.

Green Habit wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:Any particular reason why the Supreme Court declined to hear the New York 2nd Amendment case?

i think it's more likely that they hear the 7th Circuit case instead, due to the lenghty feud that Scalia and Posner had over the issue. Have you read much about that?

Not too much. I guess its unlikely for the 2nd to be extended outside the home, though I'm not sure by what logic they'll come to that conclusion.

Well, Posner and Scalia had a lengthy tit for tat after Scalia released his latest book. I won't bore everyone with the details, it should be easily Googleable. Specifically with guns, Posner joined onto the 7th Circuit's opinion on McDonald v. Chicago (which SCOTUS reversed) and he has been very critical of that reversal. So, in an effort to throw the gauntlet down again at Scalia, in Moore v. Madigan he wrote an opinion finding that the Second Amendment as now interpreted by SCOTUS does include a right outside the home, even though he disagrees strongly with that interpretation. He's basically daring Scalia to go farther than perhaps Scalia would like.

I'm happy for Posner to make what I believe to be the correct decision, although it may be out of spite. Just like the first amendment, its not clear what limitations (other than disenfranchisement due to a felony conviction, incompetence, etc) should be allowed. Seems like they'd have to invent such a justification for said limits.

simple schoolboy wrote:I'm happy for Posner to make what I believe to be the correct decision, although it may be out of spite. Just like the first amendment, its not clear what limitations (other than disenfranchisement due to a felony conviction, incompetence, etc) should be allowed. Seems like they'd have to invent such a justification for said limits.

We entered uncharted waters with this just a couple years ago, so of course there would be an invention. The way I would interpret the Second Amendment is that it gives the people a general right to self defense that can be bolstered with weapons, but does not guarantee the right to any specific weapon, of which could possibly be regulated or even banned. I think that you and all nine of the justices would find something to disagree with there.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/04/live- ... rg-law-15/

Comment From DT
Tom: Could you elaborate on why you beleive Justice Kennedy is the likely author of the Fisher opinion? TG: There are two cases from the October sitting left (Fisher and Moncrieffe) and Kennedy has not written an opinion, making it quite likely that he has one of them. Fisher, given its importance and the centrality of his vote, is most likely by far.

Sounds to me like the Chief assigned Fisher to Kennedy knowing that he would be the wobbliest of a possible bare majority to curtail affirmative action....

Here's a good long read on how Jerry Brown is essentially ignoring the Supreme Court's demand to get the prison overcrowding crisis in compliance. SCOTUS does have a lot of power, but the ironic thing is that they're powerless to actually enforce their rulings.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... is/274852/

Green Habit wrote:Here's a good long read on how Jerry Brown is essentially ignoring the Supreme Court's demand to get the prison overcrowding crisis in compliance. SCOTUS does have a lot of power, but the ironic thing is that they're powerless to actually enforce their rulings.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... is/274852/

Well, they need to build that high speed train so.....

Green Habit wrote:Here's a good long read on how Jerry Brown is essentially ignoring the Supreme Court's demand to get the prison overcrowding crisis in compliance. SCOTUS does have a lot of power, but the ironic thing is that they're powerless to actually enforce their rulings.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... is/274852/

Is Brown a big fan of President Jackson?

Green Habit wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:I'm happy for Posner to make what I believe to be the correct decision, although it may be out of spite. Just like the first amendment, its not clear what limitations (other than disenfranchisement due to a felony conviction, incompetence, etc) should be allowed. Seems like they'd have to invent such a justification for said limits.

We entered uncharted waters with this just a couple years ago, so of course there would be an invention. The way I would interpret the Second Amendment is that it gives the people a general right to self defense that can be bolstered with weapons, but does not guarantee the right to any specific weapon, of which could possibly be regulated or even banned. I think that you and all nine of the justices would find something to disagree with there.

Some federal ruling (too lazy to look it up) found that "arms" is properly understood through the "militia" clause, which while you might not agree with, it is not a crazy reading. They held that "arms" for 2nd ammendment purposes are those appropriate for a militia. If I'm not mistaken, they upheld the conviction of a man for posessing a sawed off shotgun as it had no discernable utility for a miltia (not that the man intended to carry it in the service of a militia). Undoubtedly that case law has been superceeded by more recent rulings and you probably don't concur with it as it logically provides for any non-probihibited individual to own a selective fire rifle, and perhaps a limited anti-armor capability (continuing the purported 18th century understanding to today).

Between the forementioned definition and yours we have a substantial divide. In the former almost anyone can have a machinegun. In the latter we can reasonably be limited to using only sporks in our defense.

simple schoolboy wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:I'm happy for Posner to make what I believe to be the correct decision, although it may be out of spite. Just like the first amendment, its not clear what limitations (other than disenfranchisement due to a felony conviction, incompetence, etc) should be allowed. Seems like they'd have to invent such a justification for said limits.

We entered uncharted waters with this just a couple years ago, so of course there would be an invention. The way I would interpret the Second Amendment is that it gives the people a general right to self defense that can be bolstered with weapons, but does not guarantee the right to any specific weapon, of which could possibly be regulated or even banned. I think that you and all nine of the justices would find something to disagree with there.

Some federal ruling (too lazy to look it up) found that "arms" is properly understood through the "militia" clause, which while you might not agree with, it is not a crazy reading. They held that "arms" for 2nd ammendment purposes are those appropriate for a militia. If I'm not mistaken, they upheld the conviction of a man for posessing a sawed off shotgun as it had no discernable utility for a miltia (not that the man intended to carry it in the service of a militia). Undoubtedly that case law has been superceeded by more recent rulings and you probably don't concur with it as it logically provides for any non-probihibited individual to own a selective fire rifle, and perhaps a limited anti-armor capability (continuing the purported 18th century understanding to today).

Between the forementioned definition and yours we have a substantial divide. In the former almost anyone can have a machinegun. In the latter we can reasonably be limited to using only sporks in our defense.

What you described is more or less what Scalia wrote in Heller, so the case you mentioned might have come after Heller. The problem I have is that militias are just such an antiquated entity that I find it difficult to use them as the deciding factor for today's weapons. I just think if the government can establish some sort of interest in banning a weapon, that should be constitutional if a sufficient, less dangerous alternative is available. What level of interest I would demand is a tough question, and I would have to look at an actual case and study the facts to provide a good answer. If we used the Equal Protection Clause scale it could rank anywhere between a rational basis and strict scrutiny--I'm not sure. You noted that an interpretation could allow people to own machine guns--that's an example where I see self defense satisfied by semi-automatics which would justify their ban.

Looks like Sotomayor is quite sensitive as to what to call a certain class of people. There really is no good descriptor, is there?

http://joshblackman.com/blog/2013/04/23 ... -of-alien/

Alito calls out Sotomayor for using term “noncitizen” instead of “alien”

In Moncrieffe v. Holder, Justice Sotomayor consistently uses the term “noncitizen.” Nowhere in her opinion does the word “alien” appear. Justice Alito takes exception to this, and adds in a footnote:

1 “Alien” is the term used in the relevant provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and this term does not encompass all noncitizens. Compare 8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(3) (defining “alien” to include “any person not a citizen or national of the United States”) with §1101(a)(22) (defining “national of the United States”). See also Miller v. Albright, 523 U. S. 420, 467, n. 2 (1998) (GINSBURG, J., dissenting).

In Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, as noted Adam Liptak, Justice Sotomayor “marked the first use of the term ‘undocumented immigrant,’” rather than “illegal immigrant,” which “has appeared in a dozen decisions.”

I previously speculated what term the Court would use in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting. The relevant statute uses the phrase “illegal alien.” During arguments, Justice Sotomayor used the phrase “illegal alien,” and quickly changed to “undocumented alien.”

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: — just — just focus the question? Because we keep talking about whether the APA-type definition of licensing is what Congress intended or not, but you don’t disagree that Congress at least intended that if someone violated the Federal law and hired illegal aliens of Hispanic — undocumented aliens and was found to have violated it, that the State can revoke their license, correct, to do business?

In arguments in Whiting, Justices Scalia and Alito consistently used the phrase “Illegal Alien.”

In a few short years, Justice Sotomayor has gone from “undocumented immigrant” to “undocumented alien” to “noncitizen.”

Did Sotomayor and the Associated Press share notes for the politicaly correct version of 'illegal immigrant'?

Green Habit wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:I'm happy for Posner to make what I believe to be the correct decision, although it may be out of spite. Just like the first amendment, its not clear what limitations (other than disenfranchisement due to a felony conviction, incompetence, etc) should be allowed. Seems like they'd have to invent such a justification for said limits.

We entered uncharted waters with this just a couple years ago, so of course there would be an invention. The way I would interpret the Second Amendment is that it gives the people a general right to self defense that can be bolstered with weapons, but does not guarantee the right to any specific weapon, of which could possibly be regulated or even banned. I think that you and all nine of the justices would find something to disagree with there.

Some federal ruling (too lazy to look it up) found that "arms" is properly understood through the "militia" clause, which while you might not agree with, it is not a crazy reading. They held that "arms" for 2nd ammendment purposes are those appropriate for a militia. If I'm not mistaken, they upheld the conviction of a man for posessing a sawed off shotgun as it had no discernable utility for a miltia (not that the man intended to carry it in the service of a militia). Undoubtedly that case law has been superceeded by more recent rulings and you probably don't concur with it as it logically provides for any non-probihibited individual to own a selective fire rifle, and perhaps a limited anti-armor capability (continuing the purported 18th century understanding to today).

Between the forementioned definition and yours we have a substantial divide. In the former almost anyone can have a machinegun. In the latter we can reasonably be limited to using only sporks in our defense.

What you described is more or less what Scalia wrote in Heller, so the case you mentioned might have come after Heller. The problem I have is that militias are just such an antiquated entity that I find it difficult to use them as the deciding factor for today's weapons. I just think if the government can establish some sort of interest in banning a weapon, that should be constitutional if a sufficient, less dangerous alternative is available. What level of interest I would demand is a tough question, and I would have to look at an actual case and study the facts to provide a good answer. If we used the Equal Protection Clause scale it could rank anywhere between a rational basis and strict scrutiny--I'm not sure. You noted that an interpretation could allow people to own machine guns--that's an example where I see self defense satisfied by semi-automatics which would justify their ban.

I was referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller. One of the first SCOTUSblog links I found refers to Miller being an important component of the Heller case: http://www.scotusblog.com/2008/06/helle ... tural-law/ On a related note, it seems that Illinois is up against a June deadline to provide regulations for concealed carry. Failing that, they will become a constitutional carry state. Similarly, unless they defer to or are pre-empted by a ruling by SCOTUS, the 9th circuit is expected to allow shall issue (if you meet the basic requirements you get a concealed carry permit, rather than an opaque process) in California*. *Currently, if you live in the cities it is impossible to get a license to concealed carry, while if you live in rural areas it is quite easily, depending on the county sherrif.

In the jurisdictions of Chicago or urban California, should it come to pass that you are allowed to carry firearms it is still a terrible idea to do so considering the police propensitity for killing people for 'furtive movements' and the like. All I want is to reduce the likelihood of getting arrested for what otherwise would be a normal traffic stop, as I will otherwise do my utmost to reduce the amount of shiny things in the cab or furtive movements.

Wow, Monsanto got a unanimous win at SCOTUS today:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12 ... 6_c07d.pdf

Wonder how that bodes for the Myriad case.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12 ... 7_d18e.pdf

Held: When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

[...]

KENNEDY,J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,C.J., and THOMAS, BREYER,and ALITO,JJ., joined.SCALIA,J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN,JJ.,joined.

Green Habit wrote:Wow, Monsanto got a unanimous win at SCOTUS today:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12 ... 6_c07d.pdf

Wonder how that bodes for the Myriad case.

broken iris wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Wow, Monsanto got a unanimous win at SCOTUS today:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12 ... 6_c07d.pdf

Wonder how that bodes for the Myriad case.

For me, it's tough to figure out what is the happy ending here.