A perfectly predictable assertion from a fascist supreme court.
The “public interest” is whatever the public is told it is. If the decree is for “more dakka”, then the public will be interested in guns everywhere without restriction, and like it.
12 Likes
16 Likes
looks to be the same “reasoning” as abortion:
Under the Supreme Court’s new test, the government that wants to uphold a gun restriction must look back into history to show it is consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
… a federal appeals court this month [therefore] said the government can’t stop people who have domestic violence restraining orders against them from owning guns… the government failed to point to a precursor from early American history that is comparable enough to the modern law.
looks there are a few judges who aren’t too happy about this either:
“We are not experts in what white, wealthy, and male property owners thought about firearms regulation in 1791. Yet we are now expected to play historian in the name of constitutional adjudication,” wrote Mississippi U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves, who was appointed by President Barack Obama.
laws are no longer allowed to change apparently. they must all be exactly what moses carved on the washington monument
16 Likes
i know it’s a terrible foie gras to reply to one’s self, but these rulings and hcr’s latest letter coincide
As the 1922 case indicated, Asian Americans could not rely on the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868, to permit them to become citizens, because a law from 1790 knocked a hole in that amendment
Congress overturned Chinese exclusion laws in 1943 and, in 1946, made natives of India eligible for U.S. citizenship. Japanese immigrants gained the right to become U.S. citizens in 1952.
if the court can overturn law by reaching back a hundred years for healthcare and gun control, lots of things become terrible possibilities
14 Likes
The opposite of a living constitution is a dead one.
14 Likes
LOL, you mean fox paw, dude.
12 Likes
hey now. gotta have some levity in these trying times 
but not too much mind you…
[edit] that said, i do apologize for the use of fowl language.
14 Likes
No prob, I for one am glad you goosed us with that joke.
16 Likes
I had to scroll back up and take a gander
10 Likes
“Ruining” would require the Justices to side with ordinary people (the plaintiffs) over a corporation (Yahoo!). Does that seem likely?
8 Likes
If they look at it as “tech companies supporting libs,” yes, very much. Should the decision go to the plaintiffs, I fear the impact on smaller publishers would be devastating. In case that’s too subtle, I suspect BoingBoing as we know it would cease to be.
9 Likes
WaPo summary regarding Gonzales vs. Google included this tidbit:
Critics say Section 230 gives tech companies too much power over what is and is not allowed on their sites. Supporters — including a wide range of internet companies, free-speech advocates and open-Internet proponents — say that without the law, online communication would be stifled and social media as we know it would cease to exist.
I know there are some very real free speech issues at stake here but holy how does it sound someone threatening me with a good time.
9 Likes
Won’t somebody think of the children?
8 Likes
Hidden among the list [PDF] of dozens of cases the Supreme Court will not be reviewing is this one, rejected without comment by the justices.
22-293 NOVAK, ANTHONY V. PARMA, OH, ET AL.
The case dates back to 2016. Anthony Novak decided to create a Parma (Ohio) Police Department parody page on Facebook. He made a number of posts, none of which should have been taken seriously by readers. He insinuated the PD was not interested in hiring minorities, that it was performing abortions in a “roving abortion van,” would be arresting anyone caught outside between noon and 9 pm, was hosting a “Pedophile Reform event,” and had instituted a ban on feeding homeless people in hopes that starvation would allow the problem to resolve itself.
What should have been ignored instead became the focus of the Parma PD, which assembled an ad hoc task force of seven officers to determine who was behind the parody account. Once this information was obtained, Novak’s house was raided and his devices — including two hard drives, a laptop, two video game consoles, and two cellphones — were seized. Novak spent four days in jail before being allowed to bail out.
The alleged criminal act was the use of a computer to “disrupt, interrupt, or impair police services.” The Parma PD offered no evidence of any such disruption, interruption, or impairment other than it having to deal with a total of 10 phone calls related to parody page over a period of 12 hours.
…
This rejection by the Supreme Court is a kick in Constitution’s teeth. It had a chance to right an obvious wrong but has decided, for unexplained reasons, this important First Amendment case isn’t worth its time. So, the Sixth Circuit’s decision stands. And, because it does, officers in the circuit will feel far more emboldened to engage in retaliation over what’s supposed to be protected speech.
16 Likes
Then we get to the case of John Montenegro Cruz. He was sentenced to death after being blocked from telling the jury that he couldn’t be paroled, and he lost an initial appeal before the Lynch decision of 2016. After Lynch, he cited a state procedural rule that allows a challenge when there’s been “a significant change in the law that, if applicable to the defendant’s case, would probably overturn the defendant’s judgment or sentence.”
Yet, somehow, the Arizona Supreme Court said that the 2016 ruling in Lynch wasn’t a “significant change.” Pointing out how ridiculous that is, Justice Elena Kagan at oral argument last year had this to say about the state’s position:
I think Kafka would have loved this. Cruz loses his Simmons claims on direct appeal because the Arizona courts say point-blank Simmons has never applied in Arizona. And then he loses the next time around because the Arizona courts say Simmons always applied…
13 Likes
Definitively not SCOTUS-- unless they choose not to act.
8 Likes
Of course we know which way this will go - Thomas has never seen a ladder he would not pull up after climbing it. When he inevitably rules against interracial marriages he will grandfather his own in and the language of his opinion will outlaw “mixing of of the races”
10 Likes
12 Likes
10 Likes
Betteridge’s Law applies.
10 Likes
