I'm going to fire off a few rounds because I don't want to take 'em to court as the saying goes. I have an even heavier caseload.
"Supreme Court rules on ‘straw purchaser’ law" by Sam Hananel | Associated Press June 17, 2014
WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court sided with gun control groups and the Obama administration Monday, ruling that the federal government can strictly enforce laws that ban a ‘‘straw’’ purchaser from buying a gun for someone else.
I'm just wondering if that ruling includes government gun-running operations like Fast and Furious and a few others whose names escape me right now.
The justices ruled, 5 to 4, that the law applied to a Virginia man who bought a gun with the intention of transferring it to his uncle in Pennsylvania — even though the uncle is not prohibited from owning firearms.
The decision split the court along familiar ideological lines, though it has no direct bearing on the Second Amendment right to own guns. It settles a split among appeals courts over federal gun laws intended to prevent sham buyers from obtaining guns for the sole purpose of giving them to another person.
The laws were part of Congress’s effort to make sure firearms did not get into the hands of unlawful recipients.
Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said the federal government’s elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements help law enforcement investigate crimes by tracing guns to their buyers. Those provisions would mean little, she said, if a would-be gun buyer could evade them by simply getting another person to buy the gun and fill out the paperwork.
‘‘Putting true numbskulls to one side, anyone purchasing a gun for criminal purposes would avoid leaving a paper trail by the simple expedient of hiring a straw,’’ Kagan said.
Her opinion was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often considered the court’s swing vote, as well as liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor.
In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the language of the law does not support making it a crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner.
He was joined by the court’s other conservatives — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
The case began after Bruce James Abramski Jr. bought a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, Va., in 2009 and later transferred it to his uncle in Easton, Pa. Abramski, a former police officer, had assured the Virginia dealer he was the ‘‘actual buyer’’ of the weapon even though he had already offered to buy the gun for his uncle using his expired police identification to get a discount.
Oh, so this whole thing was a set-up test case to advance the gun-control agenda.
I mean, a cop of all people should know better.
*****************
Police later arrested Abramski after they thought he was involved in a bank robbery in Rocky Mount, Va. No charges were ever filed on the bank robbery, but officials charged him with making false statements about the purchase of the gun....
It is exactly what I said it was, sorry.
The Obama administration had argued that accepting Abramski’s defense would impair the ability of law enforcement officials to trace firearms involved in crimes and keep weapons away from people who are not eligible to buy them.
‘‘This is a very big and very positive decision that will save lives by keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people,’’ said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
The National Rifle Association sided with Abramski, asserting that the government wrongly interpreted the law and improperly expanded the scope of gun regulations. Twenty-six states also submitted a brief supporting Abramski’s view of the law, while nine states and Washington, D.C., filed papers bolstering the Obama administration.
Scalia scoffed at the majority’s reading of the law, noting that if Abramski intended to buy the gun as a gift or to use as a raffle prize, the government would consider him the true buyer.
‘‘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,’’ Scalia said.
Kagan responded with her own analogy: ‘‘If I send my brother to the Apple Store with money and instructions to purchase an iPhone, and then take immediate and sole possession of that device, am I the ‘person’ (or ‘transferee’) who has bought the phone or is he? Nothing in ordinary English usage compels an answer either way.’’
What is with the vaguely-worded laws? Obummercare, this?
--more--"
"Supreme Court allows challenge to law banning lies in elections" by Adam Liptak | New York Times June 17, 2014
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday allowed a challenge to an Ohio law banning lies in political campaigns to move forward, ruling that two advocacy groups could challenge a law that makes it a crime to make knowingly or recklessly false statements about candidates that are intended to help elect or defeat them.
One could take this blog that way to a certain extent, although I despise both branches of the Banker's War Party. Besides, most of the falsities are coming from the ma$$ media it$elf.
Lower courts had dismissed the case, saying the groups seeking to challenge it had not faced imminent harm sufficient to give them standing to sue. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said the groups “have alleged a credible threat of enforcement” of the law and so were not barred from pursuing their challenge to it.
The case was brought by Susan B. Anthony List, anantiabortion group, and Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes. Both had sought to criticize Steve Driehaus, former representative and a Democrat, in the midst of what turned out to be his unsuccessful 2010 run for reelection to the House.
People are always surprised the womens-libber was a pro-lifer.
They asserted that his vote in favor of President Obama’s health care law, the Affordable Care Act, could be interpreted as one “for taxpayer-funded abortion.” The Supreme Court took no position on the truth of that statement.
The justices said Susan B. Anthony List does not have to wait until it is prosecuted under the law to claim its First Amendment rights have been infringed.
The court did not directly rule on the constitutionality of the law, but the decision sends the case back to a lower court to consider the question.
Driehaus filed a complaint against the antiabortion group with the Ohio Elections Commission, which makes preliminary determinations and can recommend criminal prosecutions. It issued a finding of probable cause that the group had violated the law. Driehaus dropped his complaint after he lost the election and before the case had gotten much further.
The Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati dismissed the groups’ suit challenging the law, saying they no longer had anything to worry about.
In his opinion reversing that ruling, Thomas said the groups had shown that they intended to repeat their critique of the Affordable Care Act against other candidates and that “the threat of future enforcement of the false statement statute is substantial.” That meant, he said, that their lawsuit could move forward.
Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser said the group would move quickly to try to have the law tossed out, saying the truth of political statements should be judged by voters.
Both liberal and conservative groups have criticized the Ohio law, saying it stifles the wide debate that is crucial during elections, including negative speech that may sometimes twist the facts.
Even Ohio attorney general Mike DeWine declined to defend the law in court, citing constitutional concerns. He sent his deputies to argue for the state instead. The law carries a possible penalty of six months in jail.
On another matter, the Supreme Court said Monday that it would not hear a case about whether high school graduation ceremonies held in a church violated the First Amendment’s prohibition of government establishment of religion.
The court’s order gave no reasons. Scalia, joined by Thomas, dissented, saying the court should have heard the case or sent it back to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision last month allowing prayers at town board meetings.
Scalia said he knew that some might be offended by the religious symbols in a church.
“I can understand that attitude: It parallels my own toward the playing in public of rock music or Stravinsky,” he wrote. “And I too am especially annoyed when the intrusion upon my inner peace occurs while I am part of a captive audience, as on a municipal bus or in the waiting room of a public agency.”
But that sort of offense, Scalia continued, was not a problem under the First Amendment.
“It is perhaps the job of school officials to prevent hurt feelings at school events,” he wrote. “But that is decidedly not the job of the Constitution.”
The case arose from graduation ceremonies held by two public high schools in Brookfield, Wis., at Elmbrook Church, an evangelical Christian institution. Administrators said they chose the church for its comfortable seats, air conditioning, and ample parking.
A divided 10-judge panel of the Seventh US Circuit Court of Appeals, in Chicago, ruled that the religious symbols in the church, including a large cross and pews filled with Bibles and hymnals, made it an inappropriate setting.
“Regardless of the purpose of school administrators in choosing the location,” Judge Joel M. Flaum wrote for the seven-judge majority, “the sheer religiosity of the space created a likelihood that high school students and their younger siblings would perceive a link between church and state.”
--more--"
Related: Allowing political lies is better than the alternative
I'm sorry I no longer have any juice left for this slop.
"Supreme Court justices to ponder online threats" Globe wire services June 17, 2014
The Supreme Court will consider the free speech rights of people who use violent or threatening language on Facebook and other social media.
The court on Monday agreed to take up the case of a Pennsylvania man sentenced to nearly four years in prison for posting online rants about killing his estranged wife, shooting up a school, and slitting the throat of an FBI agent. A federal appeals court rejected Anthony Elonis’s claim his comments were protected by the First Amendment. He says he never meant to carry out the threats.
Another government provocateur.
I've put up the sliding guillotine and all, but I have also stated I am adamantly opposed to the death penalty due to the inability to rectify mistakes in a system rife with them. Now, if the mob wants to take matters into their own hands, I'm not standing in front of $cum and arguing their case for them.
Yes, I want the war criminals and lying looters in jail. That idea seems to be going nowhere in our $y$tem these days.
The high court said it will consider whether conviction of threatening another person under federal law ‘‘requires proof of the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten.’’ For more than 40 years, the Supreme Court has said that ‘‘true threats’’ are not protected speech.
So metaphorical musings and wistful fantasies are okay?
Also:
■ The justices rejected Argentina’s appeal of a decision requiring it to pay holders of bonds on which it had defaulted. The development is likely to add to the turmoil in Argentina’s unsettled bond market.
When is their next soccer game?
The case was brought by bondholders who refused to accept reduced payments after Argentina’s 2001 default. They say they are owed more than $1.3 billion. Most other creditors accepted such payments.
The US Court of Appeals ruled Argentina had violated a contractual promise to treat all bondholders equally.
Related: Argentina's Goal Deficit
Special master appointed for Argentina debt talks
Also see:
"The ruling is a partial victory for Halliburton Co., and the decision is a minor win for business groups that complain the growth of class actions is a drain on corporate profits. In a separate decision, the court unanimously upheld the broad application of a federal bank fraud law."
It's a $upreme Court now.
■ The high court let stand the 2011 conviction of Galleon hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam, who is serving 11 years in prison for insider trading. He wanted the court to review what role insider information played in the trades for which he was convicted. He also asked it to look at whether the government properly obtained a wiretap on his cellphone.
Old Raj has to be sitting in jail wonder why me?
--more--"
"In other matters Monday:
■ The Supreme Court refused an appeal from a Texas death row inmate whose attorneys had demanded that state officials disclose the source of drugs intended to execute him.
Related:
"Late Tuesday night, the Supreme Court refused to grant a last-minute reprieve to Georgia inmate Marcus Wellons, and the state moved forward with his execution."
It's al$o a killer court.
See: Obama Troubled by Oklahoma Execution
He could commute the thing. I mean, even if he can't he could. Just issue an executive order. Not like it has to be legal or anything.
■ The high court, without comment, turned away appeals from cigarette manufacturers of more than $70 million in judgments to Florida smokers.
(Cough) What?
--more--"
Related: Judge strikes down Montana immigrant law
Also see:
Justices, with limits, let EPA curb power-plant gases
Pffft!
Related: Last Monday in March
The end of the coal era in Massachusetts
You want to know who is going to fix that global warming problem?
"The group, called the Risky Business Project, consists of former treasury secretary Henry Paulson, former treasury secretary Robert Rubin, former secretary of state George Shultz, hedge fund manager turned climate activist Tom Steyer, Cargill executive chairman Gregory Page, former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, former Health and Human Services secretary Donna Shalala, former secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros, and former dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health Al Sommer."
When is summer going to get here, anyway?
The pathetic, agenda-pu$hing pukes even cite Michael Mann of "Hide the Decline" fame. Not only that, the two pukes most responsible for the Wall Street meltdown and fraud -- Paulson and Rubin -- are now some sort of climate heroes along with other one-percent corporate crappers.
I think it was the LYING about the WEATHER that really destroyed my relationship with the propaganda pre$$. That and the economy. I expected them to lie about wars, but....
Btw, how did all those pukes get to the conference? Plane?
Justices rebuff N.J.’s effort on sports betting
I folded long ago.
Supreme Court: BP must pay claims during appeal
I'm sure they will be adjusting those decisions momentarily.
The jury -- that's you -- can decide if this blog is worth reading anymore.
If everybody is happy, WhoGivesaF?
