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: Borden v. United States

Leave a comment

All around ne’er-do-well Charles Borden Jr., a felon who has been felonious multiple times, was rolling dirty. Police pulled his dumb ass over, and he had a gun in his car. So they locked that dumb motherfucker up. He plead guilty to possessing the firearm when he knew damn well he shouldn’t have had it.

During sentencing, the government opted to sentence him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), arguing he was a violent felon three times before, so basically, he’s officially a piece of shit, and should get an automatic minimum of 15 years in the pokey, which is what a dumb fuck gets when they’re busted with a gun after they have three violent felonies on their rap sheet.

But Borden was like, “Hey, one of those convictions, I was just reckless. I don’t actually mean to hurt anyone.” His argument being, if I wasn’t trying to hurt someone, it’s not violence, according to the ACCA text which reads,  “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.”

But the district court who heard his case were like, “Dude, the 6th Circuit already confirmed that reckless aggravated assault does count as a violent felony as a matter of precedent. So you can shove your argument squarely up your ass, Borden.” They believe that congress intended to go after people who harm others, intentionally or not.

The 6th circuit, agreeing with themselves agreed.

So now we’re here at SCOTUS to determine if intent has to be present, to make a felony, a violent felony under the ACCA.

In a narrow 5:4 decision, SCOTUS sided with Borden. He didn’t use force, and therefore you can’t call it violent.

Hear oral arguments and read about the case here

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Texas v. New Mexico

Leave a comment

In a case which seems like a total waste of time and some petty bullshit between two states, at issue here is some water rights thing. This is a unique case that, because it’s an interstate issue, just falls under SCOTUS jurisdiction, as opposed to something they agree to hear.

The Pecos River travels through both Texas and New Mexico. Apparently, they signed a deal that New Mexico would make sure it didn’t take too much water from the river, which would them harm Texas if they didn’t get enough, since the river travels through New Mexico first, and into Texas.

In order to enforce this deal, they hired a River Master to manage this shit.

Anyway, in 2015, there was a big storm, and New Mexico had a reservoir in the Pecos Basin that feeds the Pecos River, and that shit filled up. So they were gonna let that water run down the river to Texas. But Texas was like, “hey buddy, pal, friend, chap…can you hold that water for us. Our reservoir is all kinds of fucked up, and it won’t hold shit.”

So New Mexico was like, “Sure, dawg. We’ll hold it.”

Well, they held that shit for nine months. During such time, a lot of it evaporated. So New Mexico was finally like, “We gotta dump this shit, bro” and so they did.

So the water headed to Texas, but was light, since a lot of it evaporated off. But New Mexico wanted credited for all the water that was evaporated and sent to Texas, since it evaporated while being held for Texas.

Since the contract didn’t account for this shit, they asked the River Master dude to settle this shit, and he was basically like, “Fuck it, I’m calling these losses as Texas’, since they asked NM to hold that shit.”

The U.S. Attorney General sided with New Mexico saying in an amicus brief, “Saying listen you longhorn fucks, if you had taken the water when it was ready for you, all those evaporative losses would have been yours. And it’s not like New Mexico has some way of preventing water from evaporating in a reservoir. So fuck you, this is on you.”

But Texas was like, “Dude, you can’t just make up rules willy-nilly. So let’s have SCOTUS sort it out, since they have nothing better to do.

In a unanimous decision where Justice Barrett abstained, SCOTUS sided with New Mexico, Texas has no standing to review the Pecos River Master’s determination.

Hear oral arguments and read about the case here

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/65-orig

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru

Leave a comment

Old-ass teacher Agnes Deirdre Morrissey-Berru taught at Our Lady of Guadalupe school. Apparently, she was so old, the school got sick of seeing her, and summarily kicked her to the curb.

There’s laws against age discrimination though—specifically the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Dear old sweet Agnes felt like Our Lady of Guadalupe had become Our Dirty Ass Bitch of Guadalupe, and filed suit, claiming she was discriminated against because she was so old, she knew Ivan the Terrible when he was just Ivan the Slightly Unpleasant.

However, those laws allow religious institutions exemptions for ministerial staff, and the school argued that good dear old sweet harmless Agnes was effectively a minister.

Agnes was like, “Goodness gracious! I took one class on religious studies. I never learned to be a minister. So please, go forth and multiply.” (Which is a polite way of saying “go fuck yourself.”)

A district court apparently found Guadalupe’s argument good enough, and sent Agnes’ old ass packing. But the ninth circuit was like, “Hold on a minute you lazy assholes. This old broad ain’t no minister.” And they sided with dear old sweet wonderful Agnes.

One of the issues at hand, is basically to define what the fuck a minister even is, and therefore who falls under that moniker.

But ultimately SCOTUS is being asked to decide if the first amendment’s religion clause allows the courts to get involved in all of this shit in the first place.

In a 7:2 decision, SCOTUS decided dear old sweet wonderful Agnes could fuck right the hell off, and take her chocolate chip cookies with her.

You see, the court has a long history of not sticking their nose in the church’s business. They’re not about to tell the church WTF a minister is. So they were like, “Sorry dear old sweet Agnes, you’re own your own you old biddy.”

Ginsburg and Sotomayor however were like, “Agnes isn’t even hardly teaching religion for fuck’s sake. Are you kidding us with this shit? She teaches secular shit. Hell, she doesn’t even have to be catholic here.

But the other seven were like, “fuck off, decision for Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Hear oral arguments or read about the case here.

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc.

Leave a comment

Back in 1991, the government passed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. It was basically a law preventing spammers from calling you on your cell phone via a machine (robocalls), and racking up costs for the phone’s owner. Obviously, in 1991, people were often paying for minutes of usage, whereas now, most phone plans have unlimited calling. But still, I hate these assholes, so I like the law.

There were exemptions, though. It allowed for emergency calls. And it allowed for calls when you had previously agreed to get them from that party.

In 2015, those assholes in congress added a provision to allow debt collection calls “owed to or guaranteed by the United States” as well. Any calls from the federal government in general are also allowed.

Along come these butt plugs from The American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., who love spamming the hell out of people with their surveys and shit. They claim their 1st amendment right to free speech is being limited by not allowing them to annoy the fuck out of all of us with cell phones wanting to talk to us about politics and shit. They argued that because the law limits calls based on content, allowing the government to make them, while these assholes can’t, versus banning all calls—this makes such a ban a 1A violation of free speech.

At one point, this scumbag also argued:

The government-debt exception confirms that Congress did not view the privacy interests here as compelling. That exception exposes 60 million Americans to unlimited calls to collect more than 4.2 trillion dollars in debt.

Those are the kinds of calls consumers hate the most. If Congress really thought privacy was paramount, it would not have allowed those calls.

While it’s true those are the calls people hate the most, the fact is, those people agreed to incur a debt, and agreed to allow the people who lent them money or services to collect that debt, and then they didn’t fucking pay it. I’ve been there, it’s annoying. But it’s no one’s fault but my own.

Yet these shady fuckhats want to call you and just shoot the breeze about who you plan on voting for and shit. Ain’t nobody got time for that, and I didn’t agree to that shit in advance. They also argue these calls are non-commercial, meaning they’re not trying to sell you anything. So that’s why they think it should be OK.

Both an appeals court and the fourth circuit were highly unimpressed with this bullshit argument. So here were are to determine if it’s a 1A violation or not.

In a 6:3 majority, the right-leaning justices along with Sotomayor agreed that the government-debt exception violates the 1st amendment. That the government doesn’t get to say you can be called if the debt is guaranteed by them, but restrict a private debt collector.

The interesting part, is while the government lost and AAPC won, technically, AAPC still can’t call your ass. Instead, SCOTUS ruled that this “government-backed debt collection” exemption could be struck from the law itself, while leaving the rest of the law in tact. So now, you cannot robocall for any debt collection to your cell phone, whether it’s backed by the government, or a private debt. So AAPC still can’t call your mobile phone, but neither can any other debt collector.

This is basically like when you’re a kid, and you’re mad your older brother can go out, and you can’t. So instead of letting you go out, your parents say your brother can’t either. You didn’t make your own situation better, you just made it worse for others.

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Chiafalo v. Washington

Leave a comment

Similar to Colorado Department of State v. Baca, but no longer enjoined with it, this involves faithless electors.

In Washington, as in other states, an elector is bound to vote for the winner of the popular vote in that state, and if they don’t, they can be fined $1,000.

Well, Chiafalo, despite Clinton winning their popular vote, cast a ballot for Colin Powell. Washington wasn’t amused, and levied the fine accordingly.

Chiafalo argued that it’s their first amendment right to choose whatever fucking candidate they want, regardless of what the people chose.

Lower courts sided with Washington, but Chiafalo kept insisting, so here we are at SCOTUS deciding how electors are to be managed, along with the Baca  case.

In a unanimous decision, SCOTUS decided that the states can set whatever fucking rules they want for electors. That the constitution delegated that power to the states, leaving it up to them to decide how their electors are to be managed.

Libertarianism

Average Joe SCOTUS: Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

Leave a comment

In Montana, they offer a tax-credit for people who donate to scholarship funds. Espinoza’s child was a recipient of one of these scholarships. But because Espinoza’s spawn was going to a private Christian school, it’s an issue. Because Montana has a rule, and we have the 1st amendment, which largely forbids any relationship between government and the church.

So now SCOTUS must decide if giving someone a scholarship, funded by taxpayers, should be prohibited from going to a religious school, in order to preserve the separation of church and state that people believe the 1st amendment represents. For the record, it doesn’t. It’s merely written as “Congress shall make no law…”

But, a long time ago, SCOTUS has ruled that 1A was meant to create a separation between church and state, and it’s been precedent ever since.

So Espinoza’s team is trying to argue that this law from Montana forbidding such scholarships based on religious grounds is the unconstitutional rule, because it discriminates against religious people.

Montana obviously argues that giving taxpayer money to a religious school violates the first amendment.

In a 5:4 partisan decision, SCOTUS sided with Epinoza. That the scholarship was awarded with no consideration to the school they choose to attend. As such, it is discriminatory to award it to them, but then restrict what school they can use the funds for.

The libertarian in me would like to point out that taxpayers shouldn’t be fucking funding education for anyone but their own fucking kids, or anyone else they voluntarily choose to help. If that were the case, we wouldn’t even be having this fucking argument.

While I’m atheist, I tend to agree with this decision. If we’re going to dole out scholarships on merit, we don’t have the right to tell them what school they use it with.

Ginsburg and Sotomayor argued that the law didn’t place any burden on the scholarship’s recipient, and therefore wasn’t a violation of 1A. But that’s fucking dumber than a box of rocks. If this person chooses a school, and then government steps in and says you can’t use our scholarship for THAT school, that’s a fucking burden. Again, I’m atheist. But fuck that. This is the problem with left wing assholes. They want the taxpayer to help everyone, but then they only want that help applied to things they agree with, and not what the person wants. This is why they can all kiss my lily-white ass, those arrogant pricks and prickettes.

Breyer’s and Kagan’s opinion was also a dissent, but in their case, they more argued that this was a 1A conflict since taxpayer’s ultimately end up funding a religious education. I can buy into that one.

 

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Colorado Department of State v. Baca

Leave a comment

The Bacas are electors in the state of Colorado. During the 2016 election, despite the fact that in Colorado, they have a rule stating electors must cast their votes for the winner of the popular vote, the Mr. Baca inexplicably cast his vote for John Kasich.

Colorado was less than pleased, and told him to take a hike. So then Mrs. Baca went ahead and cast her vote for Clinton, along with a 3rd party, even though they still preferred to vote for Kasich.

After the election, the Bacas sued Colorado saying that the twelfth amendment should prohibit Colorado for passing such a law, and as electors, they should be able to vote for whomever the fuck they want.

So now SCOTUS is being asked to determine if the courts have the right to rule on this, and if so, is Colorado’s law, and many other state laws that are similar, unconstitutional.

Colorado argued that siding with the Bacas would effectively allow electors to vote based on a bribe, or other nefarious reasons.

Of course, the more credible argument they made, was that this basically negates individual ballots, because if the whole damn state voted for candidate A, and yet the elector picks candidate B, then the state was effectively not heard.

Justice Alito questioned the petitioner on the notion that if they win, doesn’t it give government the power to ignore the people’s votes by removing the elector, and replacing with an elector of their choosing, presumably one who favors them, such as a Republican state government who replaces an elector who votes Democrat after the Democrat wins the popular vote.

The petitioners for the Bacas argue that the state’s arguments prevents electors from making an intelligent and proper decision should something bad occur with the candidate in question. Like in this instance, imagine Hillary Clinton had been shown to have destroyed evidence in a criminal investigation, or if she had choked on a bag of dicks and was comatose in the hospital, the electors could make a credible argument to not submit their votes for her, despite the populace choosing her, which seems kinda unlikely if I’m honest.

This case was decided in two separate cases. SCOTUS in a unanimous decision decided that the states can set whatever fucking rules they want for electors. Those assholes can’t just go rogue and do whatever the hell they want.