Carson V Makin

Held: Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for otherwise generally avail-
able tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause.

6-3
ROBERTS , C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS ,
ALITO , G ORSUCH, K AVANAUGH, and BARRETT , JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed
a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN J., joined, and in which SO-
TOMAYOR, J., joined as to all but Part I–B. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissent-
ing opinion.

Can't discriminate against religious schools in the use of vouchers.

American Hospital Association v. Becerra, Sec of Health and Human Services

Held: Court has right of Judicial Review and Gov cannot selectively vary rates of reimbursement for some hospitals

9-0 unanimous decision.


IMO, case shows how f***** up the overintrusion of goverment into medical care can get and how insidious and selectively inefficient the Medicare system of reimbursement seems to have become. IOW if there is a better way this ain't it.

...with the upcoming Roe decision, this case, and its underpinnings could prove significant in how various States handle their response vis a vis the Supremacy Clause as recognzed in McCulloch v. Maryland.

UNITED STATES v. WASHINGTON

Quote:The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause generally immun-
izes the Federal Government from state laws that directly
regulate or discriminate against it. See South Carolina v.
Baker, (1988). Congress, however, can
authorize such laws by waiving this constitutional immun-
ity. See Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, (1988).

The question before us is whether a Washington State
workers’ compensation law falls within the scope of this
congressional waiver.

In McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819), this
Court held unconstitutional Maryland’s effort to tax the
Bank of the United States when Maryland imposed no com-
parable tax on any other bank within the State. Chief Justice
John Marshall explained that, under the Supremacy Clause,
“the States have no power, by taxation
or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner
control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by
Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the
general government.” The Court thus inter-
preted the Constitution as prohibiting States from interfer-
ing with or controlling the operations of the Federal Gov-
ernment.

Over time this constitutional doctrine, often called the in-
tergovernmental immunity doctrine, evolved. Originally
we understood it as barring any state law whose “effect . . .
was or might be to increase the cost to the Federal Govern-
ment of performing its functions,” including laws that im-
posed costs on federal contractors. United States v. County
of Fresno, (1977). We later came to un-
derstand the doctrine, however, as prohibiting state laws
that either “regulat[e] the United States directly or discrim-
inat[e] against the Federal Government or those with whom
it deals” (e.g., contractors). North Dakota v. United States,
(1990) (plurality opinion) (emphasis added);
(Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (not-
ing that “[a]ll agree” with this aspect of the plurality opin-
ion); see also Baker; County of Fresno.
As to the latter, discrimination-related
prohibition, a state law is thus no longer unconstitutional
just because it indirectly increases costs for the Federal
Government, so long as the law imposes those costs in a
neutral, nondiscriminatory way.

We have said that a state law discriminates against the
Federal Government or its contractors if it “single[s them]
out” for less favorable “treatment,” Washington v. United
States, (1983), or if it regulates them un-
favorably on some basis related to their governmental “sta-
tus,” North Dakota, (plurality opinion).

Washington’s law facially discriminates against the Fed-
eral Government and its contractors. Because §3172 does
not clearly and unambiguously waive the Government’s im-
munity from discriminatory state laws, Washington’s law is
unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. The Ninth
Circuit’s conclusion to the contrary is reversed, and the case
is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.

It is so ordered

SCOTUS struck down the New York 'may issue' standard in the New York Rifle and Pistol Association case. 6-3.

Two different bases -- 2nd Amendment and 14th Amendment (and not the 14th as a vehicle as to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, but apparently an Equal Protection violation all by itself.)

And, they killed the two-step approach used by the 9th Circuit to somewhat nullify the impact of Heller. There is no more 'is this an act covered by the 2nd' followed by a means test balancing.

Quote:the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many.

Quote:The test that the Court set forth in Heller and applies today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are
consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.

Period.

California's magazine restrictions are going to be toast with this decision -- that case is being considered to be before SCOTUS currently.

We'll see if the Delaware governor signs the law that passed the Delaware legislature that outlaws all centerfire long guns that accept a magazine with this being dropped.

Dobbs should be released this morning -- last day of the SCOTUS session.

Decisions are dropped roughly every 10 mins. I think that there are 4 left from the session, and I expect Dobbs to be the very last one released.

Fully expect abortion to be a matter for state legislatures after today. Interestingly I am in the process of finding a proper pro bono beneficiary so I can help get the 1960's Texas law off the books.

Dobbs wont drop today. The Court just added another release day to its term calendar for tomorrow.

In todays Ney York Pistol and Rifle Association gun carry decision, I have heard numerous people decry the 'extremist position' taken by the Supreme Court.

Of course, the type of system that will not be affected by NYPRA is already the legislative choice or state constitutional right in 43 states.

Quite the extremist decision I surmise from the numbers of states that already follow NYPRA.(/sarcasm off)

This ranks up there with the '48 Senators form a majority' **** the Democrats have gone with in the last bit (a reference to the constant litany of '2 people cannot and should not hold up legislation' mantra one heard about constantly in the past....)

Many times I am in awe of progressive math.....

(06-23-2022 08:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In todays Ney York Pistol and Rifle Association gun carry decision, I have heard numerous people decry the 'extremist position' taken by the Supreme Court.

Of course, the type of system that will not be affected by NYPRA is already the legislative choice or state constitutional right in 43 states.

Quite the extremist decision I surmise from the numbers of states that already follow NYPRA.(/sarcasm off)

This ranks up there with the '48 Senators form a majority' **** the Democrats have gone with in the last bit (a reference to the constant litany of '2 people cannot and should not hold up legislation' mantra one heard about constantly in the past....)

Many times I am in awe of progressive math.....

(06-23-2022 12:05 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Money quote:

Justice Thomas Wrote:We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self defense.

agreed.

(06-23-2022 08:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In todays Ney York Pistol and Rifle Association gun carry decision, I have heard numerous people decry the 'extremist position' taken by the Supreme Court.

Of course, the type of system that will not be affected by NYPRA is already the legislative choice or state constitutional right in 43 states.

Quite the extremist decision I surmise from the numbers of states that already follow NYPRA.(/sarcasm off)

This ranks up there with the '48 Senators form a majority' **** the Democrats have gone with in the last bit (a reference to the constant litany of '2 people cannot and should not hold up legislation' mantra one heard about constantly in the past....)

Many times I am in awe of progressive math.....

Obviously Twitter was all up in a furor about this, but I read one thread that argued this could have a rather limited impact on gun laws, focusing on the issue that was brought forth regarding “shall” and “may” issues about concealed carry, and that the law was a “may” issue. That left the ultimate decision as to whether someone was granted a concealed carry permit up to the whims of a government official.

So if New York wanted to, they could still pass a “shall” version of the law that limits concealed carry licenses, but it must be explicit. So states that wish to limit concealed carry still can.

Or was that analysis off the mark based on your reading?

(06-24-2022 07:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-23-2022 08:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In todays Ney York Pistol and Rifle Association gun carry decision, I have heard numerous people decry the 'extremist position' taken by the Supreme Court.

Of course, the type of system that will not be affected by NYPRA is already the legislative choice or state constitutional right in 43 states.

Quite the extremist decision I surmise from the numbers of states that already follow NYPRA.(/sarcasm off)

This ranks up there with the '48 Senators form a majority' **** the Democrats have gone with in the last bit (a reference to the constant litany of '2 people cannot and should not hold up legislation' mantra one heard about constantly in the past....)

Many times I am in awe of progressive math.....

Obviously Twitter was all up in a furor about this, but I read one thread that argued this could have a rather limited impact on gun laws, focusing on the issue that was brought forth regarding “shall” and “may” issues about concealed carry, and that the law was a “may” issue. That left the ultimate decision as to whether someone was granted a concealed carry permit up to the whims of a government official.

So if New York wanted to, they could still pass a “shall” version of the law that limits concealed carry licenses, but it must be explicit. So states that wish to limit concealed carry still can.

Or was that analysis off the mark based on your reading?

Not speaking for Tanq, but I suspect the determinant isn't 'is there any restriction', but is instead, does that restriction require some form of 'special need'.

So they can require training and age and perhaps numerous other things... but not a need to demonstrate that they 'need' a gun for protection. I'd suspect that acceptable things would be similar to those allowing us to exercise our other specifically enumerated rights.

(06-24-2022 07:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-23-2022 08:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In todays Ney York Pistol and Rifle Association gun carry decision, I have heard numerous people decry the 'extremist position' taken by the Supreme Court.

Of course, the type of system that will not be affected by NYPRA is already the legislative choice or state constitutional right in 43 states.

Quite the extremist decision I surmise from the numbers of states that already follow NYPRA.(/sarcasm off)

This ranks up there with the '48 Senators form a majority' **** the Democrats have gone with in the last bit (a reference to the constant litany of '2 people cannot and should not hold up legislation' mantra one heard about constantly in the past....)

Many times I am in awe of progressive math.....

Obviously Twitter was all up in a furor about this, but I read one thread that argued this could have a rather limited impact on gun laws, focusing on the issue that was brought forth regarding “shall” and “may” issues about concealed carry, and that the law was a “may” issue. That left the ultimate decision as to whether someone was granted a concealed carry permit up to the whims of a government official.

So if New York wanted to, they could still pass a “shall” version of the law that limits concealed carry licenses, but it must be explicit. So states that wish to limit concealed carry still can.

Or was that analysis off the mark based on your reading?

On the surface, that is pretty exact. The subject issue at hand was the viability of 'may issue' carry licensing regimes. In short, one that requires the showing of a special need, or is discretionary at any governmental level -- is a violation of both the 2nd Amendment and the 14th Amendment.

The ruling's underlying rationale was monumentous. Previously, various Circuits, most notably the 9th, had put forth a two part test for if a law or regulation was violative of the 2nd Amendment. The 9th Circuit had used a two step test where the steps were: does the regulation involve and violate the 2nd Amendment, and if so, is there a rational basis or is it done with rational means by the state. The 9th used this second step to uphold a wide range of California restrictions --- to the extent that a judge sitting on the 9th circuit panel that struck a California restriction authored a concurrence saying how useless the panel decision was, denoting that even a paucity of a state rationale would probably overturn the panel decision if it went to an en banc and how liberally the 9th wielded the violation + rationale.

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2...0524084633

Quote:VanDyke wrote a concurrence to his own opinion, predicting the case will be heard en banc and claiming “no firearm-related ban or regulation ever ultimately fails” in the Ninth Circuit. He criticized the circuit’s approach to Second Amendment challenges as “exceptionally malleable.”

He then attached a 13-page “alternative draft opinion” in favor of the California counties— the opposite conclusion of his own opinion— which he said would let the court’s majority “get a jumpstart” on calling the case en banc.

“Since our court’s Second Amendment intermediate scrutiny standard can reach any result one desires, I figure there is no reason why I shouldn’t write an alternative draft opinion that will apply our test in a way more to the liking of the majority of our court. That way I can demonstrate just how easy it is to reach any desired conclusion under our current framework, and the majority of our court can get a jumpstart on calling this case en banc. Sort of a win-win for everyone,” he continued.

He ended the alternate opinion with “You’re welcome.”

Thomas slammed that shut. Rather tersely.

Quote:the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many.

Now, under NYSRPA, the standard of review for 2nd Amendment violations is on par with other Bill of Rights issues.

(06-24-2022 07:49 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 07:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-23-2022 08:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In todays Ney York Pistol and Rifle Association gun carry decision, I have heard numerous people decry the 'extremist position' taken by the Supreme Court.

Of course, the type of system that will not be affected by NYPRA is already the legislative choice or state constitutional right in 43 states.

Quite the extremist decision I surmise from the numbers of states that already follow NYPRA.(/sarcasm off)

This ranks up there with the '48 Senators form a majority' **** the Democrats have gone with in the last bit (a reference to the constant litany of '2 people cannot and should not hold up legislation' mantra one heard about constantly in the past....)

Many times I am in awe of progressive math.....

Obviously Twitter was all up in a furor about this, but I read one thread that argued this could have a rather limited impact on gun laws, focusing on the issue that was brought forth regarding “shall” and “may” issues about concealed carry, and that the law was a “may” issue. That left the ultimate decision as to whether someone was granted a concealed carry permit up to the whims of a government official.

So if New York wanted to, they could still pass a “shall” version of the law that limits concealed carry licenses, but it must be explicit. So states that wish to limit concealed carry still can.

Or was that analysis off the mark based on your reading?

Not speaking for Tanq, but I suspect the determinant isn't 'is there any restriction', but is instead, does that restriction require some form of 'special need'.

So they can require training and age and perhaps numerous other things... but not a need to demonstrate that they 'need' a gun for protection. I'd suspect that acceptable things would be similar to those allowing us to exercise our other specifically enumerated rights.

Spot on Ham. One does not need to show a 'special need' on the micro-scale (i.e. the explicit facts of the case) --- on the macro-scale the basis for issuing a permit cannot involve a discretionary act by the government.

That is, for example, in California the decision to allow a CCP resided with the county law enforcement at their discretion. Residents of Central and far North California could regularly get CCPs, while those of the Bay Area for the vast most part could not. This was because the sheriffs of Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties simply did not allow them for the most part --- notably without explanation. Even after the training, passage by score, and the other objective portions of the process.

The lefties always go to:

Nobody NEEDS an "assault rifle".

Dobbs is out. 6-3.

RVW

(06-24-2022 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Dobbs is out. 6-3.

RVW

Niglet:

The ruling that the Mississippi statute is valid is 6-3.

The ruling that Roe and its successor Casey are overturned is 5-4.

The real vote is 5-1-3 with a concurrence in only the judgement of 1.

(06-24-2022 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Dobbs is out. 6-3.

RVW

SO here is what I love (sarcasm intentional) about the media... In the article you link, they say that the '3 Trump justices were critical to the decision'... ignoring of course that the memo was penned by Scalia (not a Trump guy)... and that 3 OTHER justices voted for it as well....iirc, all three of the others were nominated by ONE OF the Bush's.

(06-24-2022 10:01 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Dobbs is out. 6-3.

RVW

SO here is what I love (sarcasm intentional) about the media... In the article you link, they say that the '3 Trump justices were critical to the decision'... ignoring of course that the memo was penned by Scalia (not a Trump guy)... and that 3 OTHER justices voted for it as well....iirc, all three of the others were nominated by ONE OF the Bush's.

Not Scalia --- Alito.

Breakdown of the 5 -- Alito (decision, Bush), Thomas (Bush), Kavanaugh (Trump), Gorsuch (Trump), Barrett (Trump)

Concurrence in judgement -- Roberts (Bush)

Dissent -- Breyer (Clinton), Kagan (Obama), Sotomayor (pick so bad who cares who nominated her)

The entire dissent is simply a cacophony of progressive constitutional analysis. Nothing more than 'the Constitution needs to say what needs to be said because of the time'. Pure progressive legal detritus.

Might as well have a talking parrot screeching 'the Constitution means what it means according to the time we are in'. That is, as opposed to words and concepts that are actually set down as words and concepts.

(06-24-2022 10:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Not Scalia --- Alito.

Oops lol

Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health vs. Jackson

6-3

Quote:Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.

ALITO , J., delivered the opinion of the Court,
in which THOMAS, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT , JJ., joined. THOMAS , J., and KAVANAUGH, J., filed concurring opinions.
ROBERTS , C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion.

It's a start, but there is a LONG way to go to save half of all black and minority children from being intentionally and wrongfully put to death.

Going to need laws using the Commerce clause to prevent interstate trafficking for purposes of obtaining a child murder. There already exist laws that make it a Federal Crime to traffic across State lines for purposes of committing a murder as well as implicating all those who are conspiring, aiding and abetting in the murder and/or attempted murder. These laws also need to be fully enforced against those who would now seek to conspire to murder these innocent children, aid or provide assistance to murder these innocent children, those persons or entities providing conveyance to assist in the murder of these innocent children as well as those across State lines who proved the murder "services."