Ongoing discussion of SCOTUS cases (1 Viewer)

[MT15]

With the increased scrutiny due to recent revelations in the press I thought maybe we can use a SCOTUS thread. We can discuss the impending Senate investigation and the legislation proposed today by Murkowski and King in the Senate that will formalize ethical guidelines.

We can also use this thread to highlight cases that possibly don’t deserve their own thread, like the following.

I saw this case today, and I cannot believe the US Government is allowed to do this. Unreasonable search and seizure? The examples he gives in the rest of the thread are just sickening:

 

[Sendai]

And...the point is?

They don’t seem particularly interested in reversing assault weapons bans.

 

[DaveXA]

They don’t seem particularly interested in reversing assault weapons bans.

And why is that relevant? Do you agree or disagree with that?

 

[Sendai]

And why is that relevant? Do you agree or disagree with that?

The simple fact the supremes aren’t jumping all over state assault weapons bans is why it’s relevant. It’s certainly consistent with Heller. I’m one who believes the right is found in natural law and I’m good with Heller.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I’m one who believes the right is found in natural law...

Would you quote the part of the Constiution that mentions "natural law?"

 

[Sendai]

Would you quote the part of the Constiution that mentions "natural law?"

The second amendment is sufficient.

From Heller:

“A New York article of April 1769 said that “t is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence.” A Journal of the Times: Mar. 17, New York Journal, Supp. 1, Apr. 13, 1769, in Boston Under Military Rule 79 (O. Dickerson ed. 1936); see also, e.g., Shippen, Boston Gazette, Jan. 30, 1769, in 1 The Writings of Samuel Adams 299 (H. Cushing ed. 1968). They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.” 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) (hereinafter Tucker’s Blackstone). See also W. Duer, Outlines of the Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States 31–32 (1833).”

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

District of Columbia v. Heller: Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

supreme.justia.com

As I said, Heller works for me.

Throughout the history of the Supreme Court it has cited Natural Law rights.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The second amendment...

Quote the part of the second amendment that mentions "natural law."

 

[Sendai]

Quote the part of the second amendment that mentions "natural law."

Don’t need to. It’s foundational throughout the history of Supreme Court rulings. Like Heller.

 

[LA - L.A.]

It’s foundational throughout the history of Supreme Court rulings...

No, it's not. "Natural law" was made up by Scalia, a so called "orientalist," and is not in any way grounded in the Constitution or a an actual Constitutional right.

It's obvious your here just to push false propaganda to try to justify the corrupt, agenda driven rulings that have been made by the justices handpicked by The Heritage Foundation to push their agenda.

Fortunately, you're very bad at pushing the false propaganda and aren't influencing anyone with your efforts.

 

[superchuck500]

Of interest at the end of the court year , they passed on an Illinois assault weapons ban and in May they passed on a Maryland assault weapons ban.

I think the Court would uphold an AWB - they did in the past and those cases (and other things) signal that remains to be true.

 

[Sendai]

I think the Court would uphold an AWB - they did in the past and those cases (and other things) signal that remains to be true.

I find that rather encouraging given the courts makeup.

 

[Sendai]

No, it's not. "Natural law" was made up by Scalia, a so called "orientalist," and is not in any way grounded in the Constitution or a an actual Constitutional right.

It's obvious your here just to push false propaganda to try to justify the corrupt, agenda driven rulings that have been made by the justices handpicked by The Heritage Foundation to push their agenda.

Fortunately, you're very bad at pushing the false propaganda and aren't influencing anyone with your efforts.

So I point out that a unanimous verdict is required in a criminal trial and that makes me out as a nefarious individual supporting someone who is truly a nefarious individual. All I’m supporting is that a proper process be followed regardless of how much of a festering pustule the defendant is. You do have “issues” don’t you.

Seems like the “right to privacy” in Griswold falls into the natural rights/law arena.

 

[LA - L.A.]

So I point out that a unanimous verdict is required in a criminal trial and that makes me out as a nefarious individual supporting someone who is truly a nefarious individual.

It's the fact that you falsely claimed that the New York didn't reach a unanimous verdict when they did. That's the part that makes you a dishonest person shilling for Trump.

All I’m supporting is that a proper process be followed...

It was. You're lying every time you say it wasn't.

You do have “issues” don’t you.

My only issue is your constant lying about the facts and the law. I will always have issues when you tell lies.

What's your favorite flavor of soft drink and how old were you when your first drink it?

 

[Sendai]

It's the fact that you falsely claimed that the New York didn't reach a unanimous verdict when they did. That's the part that makes you a dishonest person shilling for Trump.


It was. You're lying every time you say it wasn't.


My only issue is your constant lying about the facts and the law. I will always have issues when you tell lies.

What's your favorite flavor of soft drink and how old were you when your first drink it?

It’s rather simple.

In Oder to elevate the misdemeanor to a felony an additional crime is necessary. The judge identified three alleged crimes, falsifying other business records, breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act or submitting false information on a tax return. In order for any of these three to be an actual crime there must be a unanimous jury vote on the specific crime. The judge didn’t require that.

 

[DaveXA]

It’s rather simple.

In Oder to elevate the misdemeanor to a felony an additional crime is necessary. The judge identified three alleged crimes, falsifying other business records, breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act or submitting false information on a tax return. In order for any of these three to be an actual crime there must be a unanimous jury vote on the specific crime. The judge didn’t require that.

Keep up...that's not how it works.

 

[SaintForLife]

It’s rather simple.

In Oder to elevate the misdemeanor to a felony an additional crime is necessary. The judge identified three alleged crimes, falsifying other business records, breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act or submitting false information on a tax return. In order for any of these three to be an actual crime there must be a unanimous jury vote on the specific crime. The judge didn’t require that.

It probably won't come to that because evidence was used that would be admissible after the SCOTUS ruling, but if it does it will definitely get overturned based on the cockamamie legal theory they used for the case.

 

[LA - L.A.]

In Oder to elevate the misdemeanor to a felony an additional crime is necessary.

This is the simple truth and the whole truth.

• The New York law does not require the crimes, that were covered up by the falsified documents. to be separately charged, tried or convicted
• The New York law only requires the prosecutor to demonstrate, during the falsified document trial, that documents were falsified to cover up another crime.
• The New York law only requires each juror to believe the documents were falsified to cover up another crime
• The New York law does not require the jurors to all agree on which crimes were covered up, they can disagree on what other crime was covered up. They just each have to believe that the prosecutor proved during the trial that some other crime was covered up.
• Lots of people have been convicted under that New York law over many years, not once has any court declared that the law is a violation of anyone's due process rights or any other rights.

Everything else you said in your post is false. It's been proven to you several times that what you keep saying is false. If you keep repeating something that was proven to you to be false, then at that point you are lying, because you are intentionally saying something that you know is false.

You will not out talk those of us who tell the truth and you will not out last those of us who tell the truth. All you are accomplishing is showing that you are not an honest person and that Trump, the person you are here to dishonestly defend, is not an honest person either.

The more you repeat the lies you keep repeating, the more you hurt your cause. That's why I'm perfectly okay with you continuing to repeat the lies you repeat. Lie all you want, we'll just keep exposing you and the lies you tell.

 

[Sendai]

This is the simple truth and the whole truth.

• The New York law does not require the crimes, that were covered up by the falsified documents. to be separately charged, tried or convicted
• The New York law only requires the prosecutor to demonstrate, during the falsified document trial, that documents were falsified to cover up another crime.
• The New York law only requires each juror to believe the documents were falsified to cover up another crime
• The New York law does not require the jurors to all agree on which crimes were covered up, they can disagree on what other crime was covered up. They just each have to believe that the prosecutor proved during the trial that some other crime was covered up.
• Lots of people have been convicted under that New York law over many years, not once has any court declared that the law is a violation of anyone's due process rights or any other rights.

Everything else you said in your post is false. It's been proven to you several times that what you keep saying is false. If you keep repeating something that was proven to you to be false, then at that point you are lying, because you are intentionally saying something that you know is false.

You will not out talk those of us who tell the truth and you will not out last those of us who tell the truth. All you are accomplishing is showing that you are not an honest person and that Trump, the person you are here to dishonestly defend, is not an honest person either.

The more you repeat the lies you keep repeating, the more you hurt your cause. That's why I'm perfectly okay with you continuing to repeat the lies you repeat. Lie all you want, we'll just keep exposing you and the lies you tell.

In order for there to be a crime Due Process requires that the crime be charged , indicted, tried in a court f law, and a unanimous conviction by a jury. That didn’t happen. The alleged Tax and Election Law crimes were not in the charges. No statutory citations. There were no indictments with statutory citations for Tax and Election Law violations. No trial for said alleged crimes. No conviction by a jury for said alleged crimes. That’s a big due process problem. That will bury faulty New York law.

 

[Sendai]

It's the fact that you falsely claimed that the New York didn't reach a unanimous verdict when they did. That's the part that makes you a dishonest person shilling for Trump.


It was. You're lying every time you say it wasn't.


My only issue is your constant lying about the facts and the law. I will always have issues when you tell lies.

What's your favorite flavor of soft drink and how old were you when your first drink it?

Soft Drink.

I’m going to say I was probably 4 or 5 and it was Sarsaparilla.