All posts by Gary Nolan

Your humble contributor is an avid political enthusiast, science junkie, former small business owner, limited government, constitutionalist, and all around lover of liberty. I make every effort to use logic and reasoning, not hate, ad hominem attacks, nor logical fallacy arguments.
SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: United States v. Briggs

Leave a comment

Back in 2005, scumbag Michael Briggs, while in the Air Force, “after an evening of heavy drinking” went to the room of one of the junior members of his squadron, and forced her to have sex with him, despite her repeated efforts to say “no” and get away from him.

Eight years later, the victim was able to provide evidence and get this asshole convicted. However, in normal law, there’s a five year statute of limitations on rape where the person isn’t murdered, but Briggs wasn’t made aware of such, and the judge at the military trial didn’t advise him as such since the military doesn’t have that limitation.

So on appeal, he brought this shit up in order to try to overturn his conviction, instead of being decent, accepting he did the fucking crime, and therefore he should do the fucking time.

The issue here is that in the military, there’s no statute of limitations for rape. They describe it as an offense punishable by death, as they consider it a more problematic crime for them over when it’s done in civilian life, because it puts missions and teams at risk. But on appeal, the court said that if Briggs had been told about the statute of limitations, he would have asserted it, and therefore would’ve had his case dismissed, completely ignoring the fact that the military doesn’t have a statue of limitations on rape.

There are two other similar cases of scumbags raping people in the military, and the state of limitations issue being at question.

Two precedents being considered here are the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Coker v. Georgia and its 2008 decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana. Essentially these removed the capital punishment possibility from any crimes that didn’t result in death, which includes rape.

So here we are at SCOTUS determining who’s the bigger idiot. Briggs (and others), or the U.S. Court of Appeals. Does the military rules that don’t apply a statute of limitations apply, or does the 8th amendment as argued in those cases take precedent, and these scumbags get to go free?

In a unanimous decision, SCOTUS sided against Briggs and ruled that there is no statute of limitations on rape, and they he and other assholes like him, will have their convictions reinstated.

Justice System, SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: FNU Tanzin v. Tanvir

Leave a comment

A trio of Muslims, Muhammad Tanvir, Jameel Algibhah and Naveed Shinwari, are here in the U.S. legally, but not natural born citizens, so they’re either citizens or green card holders.

The FBI in their campaign on the war on terror, sought to have Tanvir and company inform for them against other Muslims who may be involved in terrorist activities. Tanvir and company told the FBI to go fuck themselves, and as a result, were put on a No-Fly List by the FBI.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) basically prevents government from harassing people based on their religion, unless the government can show that there’s a compelling government interest in doing so, such as preventing a terrorist attack. RFRA also allows people to sue federal agents if they violate those religious freedoms wrongly.

So Tanvir and his merry band of Muslims are suing the federal government officials who put them on the list for doing so, after they refused to rat out their fellow Muslims. But the government is arguing that the RFRA doesn’t allow these guys to sue individual agents, it only says they can seek appropriate relief.

So now SCOTUS must decide if the RFRA allows individual federal agents to be sued under the law.

In a unanimous decision, SCOTUS decided that the FBI assholes were completely out of line, and can be sued for damages by the three Muslim men, paving the way for future suits against other lawless pricks operating in law enforcement.

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Carney v. Adams

Leave a comment

James Adams is a Delaware resident, and a member of the state’s bar association. He applied for a judicial job, but the job required he be Republican, and Adams is apolitical. This rule is part of Delaware’s effort to make the courts balanced.

Adams, being a lawyer, decided to do what lawyers do best. Sue some people. He argued the provision in the Delaware Constitution that allows such a requirement of political affiliation is some bullshit.

There is precedent in rulings on Elrod v. Burns and Branti v. Finkel which allows policy makers to have partisan rules for hiring other policy makers. But Adams is arguing that judges aren’t policy makers, since they don’t write laws or regulations, they merely interpret them.

A district court sided with Adam’s argument, and the U.S. Court of Appeals agreed, although they argued that Adams lacked standing for some reason.

So now, Carney thinks this is some bullshit, and has challenged the decision for Adams here at SCOTUS.

So now SCOTUS is being asked to determine if this rule violates the first amendment. Many of the justices brought up the point that other parties such as the Libertarian or Green party aren’t represented, yet they might bring even greater balance. But Carney is essentially arguing that his interest is in balance, and not necessarily making sure all parties are represented.

Carney also argued that there were other judicial positions open, that he were qualified for, and that Adams is merely trying to make a name for himself by going after this one he’s not.

Justice Gorsuch questioned:

Neil Gorsuch

The major party provision prohibits Independents from service, serving as judges.

That’s quite a sweeping rule.

As I understand you, you’ve indicated that you’d agree that that violates the Equal Protection Clause as applied to elected positions. But you indicate that it’s somehow very different with respect to appointed positions. And I guess I’m not clear why, given the absence of any historically-rooted tradition along these lines with respect to the major party requirement. I understand your argument that it serves as a backstop for the bare majority rule, which does have historical antecedents, plenty of them, but, near as I can tell, none of those has ever included this backstop before.

This is a novel thing.

And it does prohibit a great percentage of the population from participating in the process.

Justice Kavanaugh went on to ask:

Brett M. Kavanaugh

Why can’t Independents even better serve the goal of a balanced judiciary nonpartisan/bipartisan judiciary?

In a 8:0 decision, SCOTUS decided they didn’t give a fuck about Adams claim, saying it’s none of their fucking business. They said that Adams couldn’t even sue because he wasn’t even ready to become a judge if he won. It’s like he was suing in case he decided to try.

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Niz-Chavez v. Barr

Leave a comment

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

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

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

Leave a comment

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.

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Jones v Mississippi

Leave a comment

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

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Torres v. Madrid

Leave a comment

Roxanne Torres, your basic every day crackhead, back in 2014, got all hopped up on meth, sat her ass in a car, and was tripping balls in a parking lot, othewise enjoying her evening. Cops being curious about this car just sitting there running, decided to check it out. They went to open the door, presumably concerned she was dying or something.

Roxanne being high AF thought she was being carjacked and took the fuck off. Side note, don’t do drugs kids.

Anyway, this hurt the feelings of the cops who then shot her, which failed to slow her down, so then they pursued her. Roxanne in her meth-induced stupor decided to go all Smokey and The Bandit and shit. She then swapped her car which was bashed to shit, with another car she stole. Long story short, it didn’t work out for her.

Torres, having been shot, checked herself into a hospital, who are required to report people who show up with bullet holes in them. So cops came and arrested her dumb ass.

Two years later, she filed a civil-rights complaint arguing the cops had no business shooting her under the 4th amendment which reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

She was creatively arguing, (and by she, I mean her lawyer, because you know her dumb ass didn’t think of this shit. She’s a fucking meth-head) that shooting her was an unlawful seizure. That they had no cause at that point to shoot her since they didn’t know she was hopped up on meth, and thus a danger to others, although if they had known, they’d arguably would have been justified, since people on meth shouldn’t drive.

A district court told her to get fucked with this stupid argument, as did the tenth circuit. Citing qualified immunity, no action was taken against these modern day Wyatt Earp’s.

But her argument is that officers shooting at you, is a seizure, because it pretty obviously says you aren’t free to fucking leave. But in California v. Hodari D, SCOTUS ruled that a seizure isn’t achieved until the person is caught. So a failed attempt to seize isn’t a seizure.

Torres lawyers argue however, she was seized when she was shot, then she escaped seizure when she started singing “East bound and down, rollin’ up and truckin’.” Then, she was seized again the next day when they arrested her. So in that first seizure, they believe her 4th amendment rights were violated.

Justice Alito poignantly asked:

Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

If a baseball pitcher intentionally beans the batter, would we say, wow, that pitcher just seized the batter?

His argument being, her use of the word “seizure” seems a little creative at best. That we wouldn’t use seizure in common language in that way at all. She’s clearly trying to fit it in to help her client, but we’d never describe seizure that way otherwise.

Anyway, in a 5:3 decision, where only Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented, John Roberts and company said, “The application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure, even if the force does not succeed in subduing the person.”

They added, “So cops, you can fuck right off with that shit. We’re not going to be like, OK, if you try to stop her by grabbing her arm, or Donald Trumping her by the pussy, that’s a seizure, but act like if you shoot her ass to stop her, it’s somehow not. Get the fuck out of here with that noise. You tried to stop her—with your gun—that’s a fucking seizure.”

Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito basically asked, “Where in the constitution, or even common fucking sense, is shooting someone considered a seizure. We’ll wait.”

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