Average Joe SCOTUS: Niz-Chavez v. Barr

Agusto Niz-Chavez fled Guatemala  and all its glorious violence for the good ole USA in 2005. Since then, he knocked up his wife here three separate times, so now he’s got three citizen babies.

In 2013 he got pulled over for a fucked up taillight, and officers busted him and sent him to immigration. He was issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) which told him to appear in court.

So this is basically a rules issue. If you’re here for more than ten years, we basically say you can stay, barring you being a scumbag murderer or some shit.

Chavez is like, “I’ve been here ten years, assholes. Why are you bothering me. I did my time, I’m here now.”

But the lower court judge was like, “Wait a minute fuck face, you were only here eight years when you got the NTA, and that triggers a stop time rule, meaning that when considering if you fulfilled the ten year requirement, any time after you got the NTA doesn’t count. But Chavez was like, “How can you say the stop time rule is in effect when the notice you sent, didn’t even have a fucking date as to when I was supposed to be removed?”

So basically Chavez ‘s team is trying to say because the notice he initially received didn’t have all the relevant info on it that Chavez needed, the time bar shouldn’t have kicked in, because they fucked up.

So basically, SCOTUS is being asked to let him off on a technicality.

In a 6:3 opinion, where Justices Roberts, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissented, SCOTUS ruled in favor of Niz-Chavez. As Oyez.com writes, the opinion stated that The government must serve a single document that includes all the required information for the notice to appear to trigger the IIRIRA’s stop-time rule.

The dissenters felt like there is no need for all that bullshit. Once you receive the NTA, you know you’ve been fucking told, and you know the government is on to you. You don’t get off because they don’t have a date set yet, or some shit.

Hear oral arguments or read about the case here at Oyez.com

Average Joe SCOTUS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club

Assuming we’ve all heard of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Right? Right! Well, there’ s an exemption for certain types of information which can be requested. One exemption, known as exemption 5, is for the “deliberative process privilege.”

Basically, it means that the agency, when considering a law, may speak candidly as they hash out how to draft a regulation, and they may say things people find bothersome as they make such deliberations, but that’s just part of the creative process. If regulators know their candid conversations would be open to the public, it could stifle that process and lead to a shitty regulation-writing process, rendering these groups more useless than they already are, and thus the exemption was written to protect that.

FOIA is more about delivering data, not people’s candid conversations and ideas.

Well, the environmental Karen’s at the Sierra Club filed a FOIA request for documents of that nature from USFAWS regarding a process to write regulations on the ability for US companies to use river water to cool machinery. Since some procedures to do that, put fish and other wildlife in that water at risk of getting sucked into the equipment, they wanted to know about that shit.

The USFAWS, citing exemption 5, told the Sierra assholes to eat a bag of dicks. Basically, their argument is, this information was them just hashing out how to draft a regulation, and the only thing that should matter to Sierra and the fish, is the data and the actual regulation. Not the things they considered but threw out. Being offended by this, the Sierra Club decided to challenge exemption 5, so here we are.

In a 7:2 decision where Kagan joined the right-leaning majority, they decided that the Sierra Club can kiss their lilly white asses, and Thomasses less than white ass too, while they’re at it. Drafts of a regulation are deliberative in their very nature, and thus full under the Exemption 5 rule.

Hear oral arguments or read about the case here, on Oyez.com.

Average Joe SCOTUS: Jones v Mississippi

Piece of shit Brett Jones, at the tender age of 15, stabbed his grandfather to death. He was convicted of murder, and sentenced to life without parole. On appeal, this little prick lost, and his conviction and sentence were upheld.

However, the Supreme Court of Mississippi ordered the court to resentence him. They argued that in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), the courts considered life without parole cruel and unusual punishment for a minor, and that you can only sentence some scumbag kid that way, if you can show they’re going to be a lifelong scumbag, or what they described as permanently incorrigible.

So now SCOTUS has to determine if a juvenile must be deemed a scumbag of the highest order, who shall never be anything other than a scumbag is the rule under the 8th Amendment’s cruel and unusual clause.

The petitioner came out swinging with some touchy-feely bullshit arguing that even the worst of kids can change their ways.

But, Justice Alito dropped a hammer when he asked,

Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

There are a lot of people, they’re not psychologists maybe, but there are a lot of people who think that every human being is capable of redemption.

There’s actually a famous quote by Gandhi, who says exactly that. There are a lot of Christians who believe that. You think of the good thief on the cross. So, I mean, what if a judge says, you know, wow, the Supreme Court says I have to determine whether this person is capable of redemption, I believe that every human being is capable of redemption? What do you do with that?

Essentially arguing that there are a lot of people who think the concept of permanent incorrigibility is bullshit. And therefore, for them, this option is useless, making it as irrelevant as Greek mythology.

In a 6:3 opinion, where the touchy feely justices on the left dissented, SCOTUS ruled in favor of Mississippi. As noted above, a contrary ruling would effectively let every bleeding heart dismiss any life sentence because it hurts their feelings. But also, it leaves it open for the states to decide how they want to handle sentencing young little cunts like Jones.

Read about the case, or hear oral arguments here at Oyez.com