What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS: sponsored by Harlan Crow

St. Clown said:
So bump stocks are back as publicly available “upgrades” for assault rifles. Based upon the ruling. Congress needs to write the restrictions, not a simple reclassification that took place, of all times, during TFG’s term in office.

Can Congress get a new restriction passed ASAP? I foresee the Senate being a major hindrance.
Click to expand...

You mean the house?
 
dxmnkd316 said:
You mean the house?
Click to expand...

No, I mean the senate. Until the filibuster is relinquished to history, or the death cult releases its grip over low-education states, the senate is where non-spending legislation goes to die.

ETA: The house’s GQP is somewhat neutered by the “Ultra MAGA” cultists. Johnson has had to cut deals with the Democrats, and things like a bump stock ban could wend their way through that chamber.
 
Last edited:
Basically, machine guns are legal now. That's great news. That means mass killings can be MAASSSIVE!!!!!!!!!! killings from now on.
 
St. Clown said:
No, I mean the senate. Until the filibuster is relinquished to history, or the death cult releases its grip over low-education states, the senate is where non-spending legislation goes to die.

ETA: The house’s GQP is somewhat neutered by the “Ultra MAGA” cultists. Johnson has had to cut deals with the Democrats, and things like a bump stock ban could wend their way through that chamber.
Click to expand...

fair enough, but I'm not sure I buy Mike Johnson passing a bill that could be read as "anti 2nd amendment" in any form

i could buy the senate getting to 60, but I will grant you that's optimistic of me.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
fair enough, but I'm not sure I buy Mike Johnson passing a bill that could be read as "anti 2nd amendment" in any form

i could buy the senate getting to 60, but I will grant you that's optimistic of me.
Click to expand...

There is a better chance the Twins win out all the way through the World Series.
 
Handyman said:
There is a better chance the Twins win out all the way through the World Series.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was likely, but I also don't think it's that unlikely.

I'm just not sure "yeah, machine guns are good actually" is a winning message. Even given our meek response after sandy hook.
 
As we close in on the end of the term, there are still some big ones sitting in the wings:
Rahimi, can domestic abusers be banned from obtaining firearms
SEC, how much independence/powers do administrative agencies and administrative law judges have
Moore, is a tax on unrealized gains in foreign entities constitutional
Relentless v. Dept of Commerce, will Chevron deference survive
NetChoice LLC - does social media moderation violate the 1st amendment
Murthy - do government discussions with social media violate 1st amendment.
Fischer - does charge used to convict many Jan. 6 defendants apply to Jan. 6 insurrection
Grants Pass - can cities criminalize homelessness
Moyle - does a federal emergency medical treatment requirement preempt a state's complete abortion ban
Trump - do presidents have absolute immunity

Plus a number of other criminal / statutory interpretation cases. Next ones are expected Thursday and Friday this week.

Obvious calls:
Relentless (Chevron deference is going down 6-3 on party lines, its been in conservative crosshairs for decades)
Trump (presidents are not absolutely immune - should be 9-0, will probably be 6-1-1-1)
Grants Pass (We won't go back to debtors prisons, but there will be lots of commentary about the lawless liberal cities on the west coast and the need to address it).

Should be obvious, but the fact they made it this far is scary
NetChoice (1st amendment applies to government actions, social media is not a government, should be 9-0 but who knows what the lunatic right will argue)
Murthy (governments have the right to talk to people - in the absence of actual coercion there's no 1st amendment violation. Should be an obvious 9-0 but will be at least 7-2, could be 5-4)
Rahimi (yes you can prevent domestic abusers from possessing firearms - should be 9-0 but won't be)
Moore (yes Congress can tax unrealized gains if it chooses, should be 9-0 but will probably be 7-2 or 6-3)

No clue:
SEC - would've guessed this was going to be 6-3 along party lines earlier, but since they upheld the CFPB earlier this term I have hope the liberals + Roberts + Barrett maintains some normalcy.
Fischer - I have no clue how this will go. Criminal law tends to make strange bedfellows in the most normal of cases, and this one is so far from normal that it could go anywhere.
Moyle - My best guess is 5-4 or 5-1-3 saying the Idaho law survives, but I won't be shocked if the liberals and Roberts can pull Barrett over.
 
Last edited:
dxmnkd316 said:
I didn't say it was likely, but I also don't think it's that unlikely.

I'm just not sure "yeah, machine guns are good actually" is a winning message. Even given our meek response after sandy hook.
Click to expand...

Even if you assume all Dems vote for it (not a guarantee) there is no chance enough Republicans would do it. Hell when asked they all changed the subject. Nothing on guns that is helpful will ever pass Congress until the filibuster is dead.
 
unofan said:
Trump (presidents are not absolutely immune - should be 9-0, will probably be 6-1-1-1)
Click to expand...

I'm guessing 5-2-2. Roberts and Beer Boy join the sane, Thomas says ditto to whatever casuistic loogy Gorsuch hawks up with and the Handmaid is just that for Alito's pseudo-Aquinian assertion of the divine mandate of Presidents.
 
unofan said:
As we close in on the end of the term, there are still some big ones sitting in the wings:
Rahimi, can domestic abusers be banned from obtaining firearms
SEC, how much independence/powers do administrative agencies and administrative law judges have
Moore, is a tax on unrealized gains in foreign entities constitutional
Relentless v. Dept of Commerce, will Chevron deference survive
NetChoice LLC - does social media moderation violate the 1st amendment
Murthy - do government discussions with social media violate 1st amendment.
Fischer - does charge used to convict many Jan. 6 defendants apply to Jan. 6 insurrection
Grants Pass - can cities criminalize homelessness
Moyle - does a federal emergency medical treatment requirement preempt a state's complete abortion ban
Trump - do presidents have absolute immunity

Plus a number of other criminal / statutory interpretation cases. Next ones are expected Thursday and Friday this week.

Obvious calls:
Relentless (Chevron deference is going down 6-3 on party lines, its been in conservative crosshairs for decades)
Trump (presidents are not absolutely immune - should be 9-0, will probably be 6-1-1-1)
Grants Pass (We won't go back to debtors prisons, but there will be lots of commentary about the lawless liberal cities on the west coast and the need to address it).

Should be obvious, but the fact they made it this far is scary
NetChoice (1st amendment applies to government actions, social media is not a government, should be 9-0 but who knows what the lunatic right will argue)
Murthy (governments have the right to talk to people - in the absence of actual coercion there's no 1st amendment violation. Should be an obvious 9-0 but will be at least 7-2, could be 5-4)
Rahimi (yes you can prevent domestic abusers from possessing firearms - should be 9-0 but won't be)
Moore (yes Congress can tax unrealized gains if it chooses, should be 9-0 but will probably be 7-2 or 6-3)

No clue:
SEC - would've guessed this was going to be 6-3 along party lines earlier, but since they upheld the CFPB earlier this term I have hope the liberals + Roberts + Barrett maintains some normalcy.
Fischer - I have no clue how this will go. Criminal law tends to make strange bedfellows in the most normal of cases, and this one is so far from normal that it could go anywhere.
Moyle - My best guess is 5-4 or 5-1-3 saying the Idaho law survives, but I won't be shocked if the liberals and Roberts can pull Barrett over.
Click to expand...

Moyle is a big one. EMTALA is the underpinning of quite a few hospital assesssments and admissions, even psychiatric ones. Assuming they overrule EMTALA, hopefully SCOTUS is able to thread a needle that doesn’t unravel the rest of it. Not a legal mind, so not sure how’d they’d pull that feat off.
 
To the extent we can try to guess majority opinion authors by who hasn't written for given sitting:

Rahimi - Only one left from November - Roberts, Alito, Kagan, and Sotomayor all are options. Guessing this is Kagan, as Sotomayor would've had it out already. Possibly Roberts if he was needed to get a fellow conservative on board. If it goes 5-4 in favor of domestic abusers having guns, then it'll be Alito unless Roberts swoops in to tone it down.

SEC - only major one from December. Liberals all have their opinions out. Two other minor ones from December as well. Guessing Roberts has this one, while Gorsuch/Barrett have the two minor ones.

Relentless - only major one from January. Assuming Roberts has this one as the conservative magnum opus against the administrative state (which is why he probably has SEC, too, to show he's not entirely unreasonable). Kagan or Kavanaugh have the other outstanding criminal one from January

NetChoice LLC - only major one from February - Gorsuch/Alito/Barrett are the ones without opinions, and there should be 3 left. This could be a Barrett constitutional law professor opinion. Assume Gorsuch has the Fed Reserve one and Alito gets to punch the EPA some more in the other two.

Too early to predict the others, not enough opinions out in the March and April sittings to narrow down authors.
 
Regarding the NetChoice decision, I assume the right's argument will be that social media is a de facto public utility due to its collective power and social influence. This argument rests on the notion that, similar to water and electricity, one cannot fully participate in modern society in the 21st century without some degree of social media presence. Therefore, forcibly "deplatforming" an individual constitutes a 1A violation from that angle.
 
1st today is Moore by Kavanaugh - 7-2 on the outcome - 5-2-2 on the reasoning (majority was Kavanaugh+liberals+Roberts, Barrett concurred joined by Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch dissented). Congress can tax foreign unrealized, unrepatriated gains.

Thomas and Gorsuch dissent, saying Congress can only tax income when it's realized.
 
Last edited:
Next is a malicious prosecution case. 6-3 by Kagan. The existence of a legitimately charged crime does not inherently bar a claim for malicious prosecution for a baseless charge made at the same time.

Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent.
 
Next is a decision by Thomas regarding expert testimony standards. 6-3, with Gorsuch, Sotomayor and Kagan dissenting. There will be at least one more.
 
Last is another malicious prosecution-type case. Per curium decision saying the circuit court applied a wrong standard. Lots of concurring opinions. Thomas dissents.

More tomorrow. Lots of major ones still outstanding.
 
They're just going to rope-a-dope us along until we tune it out and they say yes, presidents do have full immunity, aren't they? And completely obliterate Chevron deference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top