Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Royal Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-15-2014, 08:06 PM  
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $8798
SCOTUS Watch June 2014

Gonna be a huge month for the Supreme Court.

Here are some decisions we should see in the next 10 days...

National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning
This should be an EPIC SMACKDOWN to Obama and his arrogant bullshit. This is by far the one I am most anticipating.

Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Not sure how this will play but leaning toward a poke in the eye for Obama here.

... and the rest that sort of matter...

Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus
This is a no brainer.

Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie
So is this one.

Aereo
Tough call here.

McCullen v. Coakley
Very tough call.

..and a dozen or so more that shouldn't matter unless we get some crazy decision.
Posts: 14,932
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2014, 10:43 PM   #16
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $8798
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
Cases like that are brought to challenge the law as unConstitutional. I didn't read the case but why would it be in the SC? I agree with Scalia. It means you can't buy a gun for a law abiding citizen. BS!
Yes you can, you just need a dealer's license. If you don't think a license should be required to sell guns than take THAT to court or lobby Congress. Don't try to get the court to write new law for you.
Posts: 14,932
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2014, 10:46 PM   #17
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $13162
A license means permission. You don't need permission for exercising a right. It's another infringement. JMO.
__________________
“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” ~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution
Posts: 58,229
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2014, 10:49 PM   #18
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $13162
From X's link:
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the dissenters, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Clarence Thomas. The Scalia opinion argued that the federal background-checking scheme simply does not apply to a gun purchase when both the person at the counter paying for the weapon and the person for whom the gun is being bought are legally eligible to have it.
I still agree with the dissenters.
__________________
“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” ~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution
Posts: 58,229
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2014, 11:02 PM   #19
alnorth alnorth is offline
MVP
 
alnorth's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Iowania
Casino cash: $14050
There is another massive case that is kind of being overlooked but will abruptly become a huge deal (or possibly a dud) depending on how the court decides it.

The case is Harris v. Quinn, and the court could potentially crush every public employee union in the country. In a "right to work" state, unions are weak because an employee can not be compelled to join a union or even pay dues to that union, even when they get benefits negotiated by that union. Human nature being what it is, those unions tend to fall apart as former members and new employees opt out of paying dues.

This case is in a state that is not a right to work state brought by members of a public employee union. They are arguing that their union is a political organization that is engaged in political speech and elections beyond the scope of just collectively bargaining for them, and that by being forced to join and pay dues, they are being compelled to support a union whose politics they dont agree with. That is fine for a private company union since you don't have to work there, but they are arguing that (since they are government employees), the government cant make them contribute to a cause they don't agree with. They want to be able to opt out even though they are not in a right to work state. The SEIU, and teacher unions across the country are bitterly fighting the case.

The liberals are with the unions, Kennedy and 3 conservatives seem inclined to basically make every state a quasi-right to work state overnight for government workers, and the toss-up vote is, bizarrely, Scalia. Based on questioning, the unions are optimistic that he might actually side with them for once, but who knows, itll be a big deal if all public employee unions across the country start losing a huge chunk of funding. Finally, another option the court could take is to punt on procedural grounds, there's apparently a way for them to decide this case without answering the bigger question.
__________________
<ptp> how many emo kids does it take to change a lightbulb?
<Willy> HOW MANY?!
<ptp> none they just sit in the dark and cry

Last edited by alnorth; 06-16-2014 at 11:08 PM..
Posts: 27,523
alnorth has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.alnorth has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.alnorth has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.alnorth has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.alnorth has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.alnorth has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.alnorth has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.alnorth has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.alnorth has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.alnorth has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.alnorth has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2014, 11:59 PM   #20
cosmo20002 cosmo20002 is online now
Debunking your bullshit
 
cosmo20002's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: KC area
Casino cash: $14405
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
Cases like that are brought to challenge the law as unConstitutional. I didn't read the case but why would it be in the SC? I agree with Scalia. It means you can't buy a gun for a law abiding citizen. BS!
JFC, BEP...
You're really not familiar with how a case can get to the Supreme Court? Not everything comes down to a question of constitutionality.

As you're aware, there's a million federal laws out there. If there's a difference of opinion on how a law should be applied, who do you think decides that?
Posts: 19,242
cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 12:04 AM   #21
cosmo20002 cosmo20002 is online now
Debunking your bullshit
 
cosmo20002's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: KC area
Casino cash: $14405
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
From X's link:
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the dissenters, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Clarence Thomas. The Scalia opinion argued that the federal background-checking scheme simply does not apply to a gun purchase when both the person at the counter paying for the weapon and the person for whom the gun is being bought are legally eligible to have it.
I still agree with the dissenters.
You'll notice that they didn't mention the constitution or anyone's rights.
Scalia simply apparently believes that the law doesn't require X. He didn't say it wasn't Constitutional.

You agree with them, but you didn't read the case and you really have no clue what it was about.
Posts: 19,242
cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 09:30 AM   #22
Xanathol Xanathol is offline
Starter
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Casino cash: $5940
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
Yeah, I'm unclear how anyone can take major issue with this decision. If you don't like the Federal Law... challenge the law or get it repealed. This decision simply stated that it was against the law to LIE on a Federal form you are required to fill out when purchasing a gun. I rarely disagree with Scalia but in this case I don't see the problem.
Kagan's conclusion:
Quote:
No piece of information is more important under federal firearms law than the identity of a gun purchaser—the person who acquires a gun as a result of a transaction with a licensed dealer. Had Abramski admitted that he was not the purchaser, but merely a straw—that he was asking the dealer to verify the identity of, and run a background check on, the wrong individual—the sale here could not have gone forward. That makes Abramski’s misrepresentation on Question 11a material….
From the dissenting:
Quote:
But the government does not contend that either Abramski or his uncle fell into one of those prohibited categories. And no provision of it prohibits one person who is eligible to receive and possess firearms from buying a gun for another person who is eligible to receive and possess firearms
Quote:
We interpret criminal statutes, like other statutes, in a manner consistent with ordinary English usage. In ordinary usage, a vendor sells (or delivers, or transfers) an item of merchandise to the person who physically appears in his store, selects the item, pays for it, and takes possession of it. So if I give my son $10 and tell him to pick up milk and eggs at the store, no English speaker would say that the store “sells” the milk and eggs to me.
In other words, Kagan et al ruled based on how she wants the law to read, ie. a national registry of all gun owners, purchases, etc that ties every gun to a single particular owner, where guns cannot be given or sold from one individual to another without the government knowing about it. While liberals have tried to pass legislation like this after almost each shooting, it has yet to pass. It's legislating from the bench.
Posts: 534
Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 09:43 AM   #23
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
Yeah, I'm unclear how anyone can take major issue with this decision. If you don't like the Federal Law... challenge the law or get it repealed. This decision simply stated that it was against the law to LIE on a Federal form you are required to fill out when purchasing a gun. I rarely disagree with Scalia but in this case I don't see the problem.
Is it really a lie though? I don't know enough about the facts of the case or the laws about gun sales to know for sure, but when you buy the gun, it seems to me that you really are the purchaser even if you plan to turn around and sell it or give it to someone else as soon as you walk out the door.

Edit: I skimmed the opinion and apparently the defendant purchased a gun at the request of his uncle and with funds provided by his uncle and the form provides a definition of "purchaser" under which he would not qualify.

Edit2: BTW, the argument used by the dissent is that the law only makes a false statement illegal if it is material to the sale of the firearm. In this case, if the defendant had correctly filled out the form, the sale would have still been legal so, the dissenters conclude, the false statement was not material.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.

Last edited by patteeu; 06-17-2014 at 09:52 AM..
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 12:37 PM   #24
WhawhaWhat WhawhaWhat is online now
Veteran
 

Join Date: Feb 2013
Casino cash: $10080
Is this the end of my Guns for Parolees program?
Posts: 4,685
WhawhaWhat Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.WhawhaWhat Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.WhawhaWhat Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.WhawhaWhat Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.WhawhaWhat Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.WhawhaWhat Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.WhawhaWhat Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.WhawhaWhat Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.WhawhaWhat Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.WhawhaWhat Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.WhawhaWhat Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 01:21 PM   #25
banyon banyon is offline
Supporter
 
banyon's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dodge City, Kansas
Casino cash: $7239
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
Is it really a lie though? I don't know enough about the facts of the case or the laws about gun sales to know for sure, but when you buy the gun, it seems to me that you really are the purchaser even if you plan to turn around and sell it or give it to someone else as soon as you walk out the door.

Edit: I skimmed the opinion and apparently the defendant purchased a gun at the request of his uncle and with funds provided by his uncle and the form provides a definition of "purchaser" under which he would not qualify.

Edit2: BTW, the argument used by the dissent is that the law only makes a false statement illegal if it is material to the sale of the firearm. In this case, if the defendant had correctly filled out the form, the sale would have still been legal so, the dissenters conclude, the false statement was not material.
It's the same to me as signing a statement under penalty of perjury in any application, whether it's a mortgage application or an employment application. You knowingly state a relevant false fact on those and you are going to prison too.

The dissent really seems out in left field on this one. I'm surprised at Alito, he has usually shown good instincts on applying the law in criminal cases.
__________________

"For the benefit and enjoyment of the people" -- Inscription, Roosevelt Arch, Northern Gate, Yellowstone, near Gardiner, MT
Posts: 32,875
banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 01:23 PM   #26
banyon banyon is offline
Supporter
 
banyon's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dodge City, Kansas
Casino cash: $7239
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmo20002 View Post
JFC, BEP...
You're really not familiar with how a case can get to the Supreme Court? Not everything comes down to a question of constitutionality.

As you're aware, there's a million federal laws out there. If there's a difference of opinion on how a law should be applied, who do you think decides that?
Yes, this case was a pure federal statutory interpretation question, which is a normal judicial function.
__________________

"For the benefit and enjoyment of the people" -- Inscription, Roosevelt Arch, Northern Gate, Yellowstone, near Gardiner, MT
Posts: 32,875
banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 01:25 PM   #27
banyon banyon is offline
Supporter
 
banyon's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dodge City, Kansas
Casino cash: $7239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathol View Post
The SCOTUS majority decided to legislate from the bench yet again. The dissenting opinion tore up the majority.
The dissent was the one advocating to strike down a popularly elected law by rendering it useless. The majority wanted to uphold the will of the legislature.

Agree with them or not, the majority wasn't doing judicial activism here (though some of the judges in the majority are known for that).
__________________

"For the benefit and enjoyment of the people" -- Inscription, Roosevelt Arch, Northern Gate, Yellowstone, near Gardiner, MT
Posts: 32,875
banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 01:31 PM   #28
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $13162
Even when the legislature is infringing a right? I think not.
__________________
“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” ~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution
Posts: 58,229
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 01:31 PM   #29
banyon banyon is offline
Supporter
 
banyon's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dodge City, Kansas
Casino cash: $7239
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post

Edit2: BTW, the argument used by the dissent is that the law only makes a false statement illegal if it is material to the sale of the firearm. In this case, if the defendant had correctly filled out the form, the sale would have still been legal so, the dissenters conclude, the false statement was not material.
Also: this argument just struck me as preposterous. Did Scalia want to reinvent the meaning of the term "material"?

One of the key elements in the illegal purchase of a weapon is whether you are a felon. Therefore, the identity of the purchaser is relevant to that inquiry to determine whether such person has a criminal history with such convictions. So, the identity of the actual purchaser is indeed important in making such a determination. Because they turned out not to be a felon doesn't mean that the fact of their identity wasn't relevant and material to answering the question asked. In logical terms, that is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

It is no different than someone creating a false name and trying to obtain a DL with it. Does the fact that the person was actually eligible for a valid DL under their real name mean that you can't prosecute them for trying to fraudulently obtain a DL? Of course not.
__________________

"For the benefit and enjoyment of the people" -- Inscription, Roosevelt Arch, Northern Gate, Yellowstone, near Gardiner, MT
Posts: 32,875
banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 01:32 PM   #30
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $8798
Quote:
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
It's the same to me as signing a statement under penalty of perjury in any application, whether it's a mortgage application or an employment application. You knowingly state a relevant false fact on those and you are going to prison too.

The dissent really seems out in left field on this one. I'm surprised at Alito, he has usually shown good instincts on applying the law in criminal cases.
Exactly.

I liken it to someone voting for someone else. Basically the dissent is saying it's ok to fraudulently vote for someone else so long as it turns out in the end that the person would have voted that way anyway.

It made no sense whatsoever.
Posts: 14,932
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:13 AM.


This is a test for a client's site.
A new website that shows member-created construction site listings that need fill or have excess fill. Dirt Monkey @ https://DirtMonkey.net
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.