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: Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashions Group Inc.

Leave a comment

Two meaningless assholes in the fashion industry are fighting about the word “lucky” here. Marcel Fashions, in their infinite marketing genius, came up with a “Get Lucky” marketing campaign which I’ve never even heard of.

Lucky Brand Dungarees comes along, and puts their actual name on their products.

Somehow, Marcel believes that Lucky Brand as a name is somehow infringing on their “Get Lucky” marketing campaign, and therefore sued for copyright infringement.

Eventually these two worthless fucks settled their dispute in 2003, and Lucky brand agreed to stop using certain campaigns Marcel took offense to, specifically they agreed not to use anything saying “get lucky,” and Marcel agreed not to sue anymore as long as they didn’t.

As any company does, Lucky Brand continued making new marketing campaigns, and of course, those campaigns involved the word “Lucky,” which then pissed off Marcel, despite the fact they continued to avoid using “Get Lucky” as per their agreement. So Marcel would sue yet again, and Lucky Brands would be like, “We settled this, you assholes. We have a deal, remember?”

But then Marcel was like, “But these are new uses that hurt our feelings in a new way, and therefore aren’t part of our original settlement.”

So there’s a preclusion rule, that is basically designed to prevent companies from re-litigating the same shit over and over again. Settle it once and for all and move the fuck on already. These assholes have been going at this for 20 fucking years.

So SCOTUS is being asked to decide if preclusion rules apply here, and therefore should Marcel politely go fuck themselves.

Marcel is arguing that basically every time Lucky launches a new campaign with Lucky in the campaign, it can’t possibly have been included in the original settlement, since it happened after the fact. Therefore, they have cause to sue if their feelings are hurt by the new campaign.

Lucky Brands is arguing that Lucky is part of their name, and they should be able to use their own damn name. Plus, there’s no way when they settled, that they could anticipate what they were going to come up with as a marketing plan in future years. So as long as they seem to be in line with the spirit of the settlement, Marcel are just being a bunch of whiny little bitches. They also contend they agreed not to use “Get Lucky” which they’ve continued not to do. So they’re in compliance with their agreement.

In a unanimous decision, SCOTUS sided with Lucky Brand. That this matter was settled with their initial agreement, and Marcel can fuck right the hell off. Lucky Brand’s defense can be used to defend against these new claims, because these new uses are different than the claim that was settled previously, with the use of “Get Lucky,” and therefore such claims should be dismissed.

Hear oral arguments and read about the case here.

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California

Leave a comment

As you know, unless you’ve been under a fucking rock for the last decade, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under president Obama, started a program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

The program basically gave work visas to kids who were brought here illegally, presumably not a choice they made themselves, but a decision forced upon them by parents who came here illegally. Since these kids would largely grow up as Americans, Obama and his supporters felt they should be allowed to stay, and this provided a framework for doing so.

Once Trump took office, he instructed the DHS to terminate DACA, as part of his anti-illegal-immigration initiatives he campaigned on. The Trump administration basically argued that Obama was out of line passing this law, and therefore it shouldn’t be law in the first place.

Regents agreed that Trump has the right to set new policy, but because Trump argued that this law was improperly enacted, and that was his reason for ending it, this was an improper cancellation of the law, and lower courts agreed, which is why we’re now here at SCOTUS, and the current DHS is demanding a reversal of that decision.

Regents also argued that because DACA participants had been essentially told they would get to stay and get a work visa, and thus potentially planned their lives accordingly, versus self-deporting on their own terms, this reversal by Trump & Company, would cause irreparable harm.

So SCOTUS has decided to answer the question as to whether this is a matter for the courts to decide, or if this is something for the other two branches to sort the fuck out. And if it is the purview of the courts, was DHS right in winding down DACA?

In a 5:4 decision, where John Roberts sided with the “left-leaning” justices, SCOTUS decided that they did in fact have authority to rule on this, and so they would.

They decided that Trump’s decision to repeal this law was basically some racist bullshit that violates the 5th amendment’s equal protection of the law, statute. They said that it was arbitrary and capricious, which is a fancy term that basically means, it was a decision both made without any reasonable consideration of the facts, but also, he didn’t think about the ramifications of what he did, and how it might had many consequences that are unfair he didn’t think about.

So for now, DACA stays.

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Romag Fasteners v. Fossil

Leave a comment

We’re all familiar with Fossil, I assume. They sell handbags and shit. Well, there’s a small Connecticut company, Romag Fasteners, that almost 20 years ago, entered into an agreement with Fossil to supply them with magnetic fasteners for their handbags.

Fossil has their shit made in China, because that’s what you do these days. Can we all agree China plays pretty fast and loose with intellectual property? They’re the fucking worst with that shit. Communists don’t believe in intellectual property, because they’re fucking commies who don’t believe you can own a fucking thing, certainly not intellectual property.

Anyway, there’s one licensed distributor of Romag fasteners in China, and the Fossil plant in China decided to pinch a few pennies, and have a company replicate the fastener cheaper, and use those instead, all apparently unbeknownst to Fossil HQ here in the US.

Some wily ass Romag employee saw the bags at Macy’s, with the Romag name on the fasteners, but that clearly wasn’t one of their fasteners. So they were like, “You motherfuckers!”

So clearly this is a trademark issue, and it’s wrong. The problem is, Fossil argues they were clueless. And they can’t be held liable for wrongdoing when they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.

Romag of course is saying, you assholes made money off our name, so fucking pay us. Whether you know or not, doesn’t matter.

In a unanimous decision, SCOTUS was entirely unimpressed with Fossil’s argument, siding with Romag, that Fossil owes them money. Ignorance isn’t a fucking excuse.

Hear oral arguments and/or read about the case and the opinions here.

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Ramos v. Louisiana

Leave a comment

6th Amendment – Bill Of Rights – United States Constitution

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

14th Amendment – Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

All around Louisiana scumbag, Evangelisto Ramos allegedly murdered someone. He went to trial, and opted for a jury. Ten of the jurors thought he was guilty AF, but two weren’t so convinced. However, in Louisiana, you don’t need to convince all twelve jurors, ten will do just fine.

So Ramos appealed, citing the 6th amendment, which says nothing about unanimous decisions, somehow alludes to the notion that decisions must be unanimous. The appeals court told Ramos to get fucked. And the Supreme Court of Louisiana told him they didn’t even have time to listen to his bullshit. SCOTUS on the other hand seemed bored, and were happy to have a listen.

His argument is based on 1972’s Apodaca v. Oregon where SCOTUS decided that while the 6th amendment guarantees the people a right to trial by jury, and that federal jury trials require a unanimous jury verdict, such a unanimity verdict requirement does not apply to the states. They need only be a trial by jury.

Ramos’ team argues that if it’s good enough for federal courts, it’s good enough for the state courts too, and wants that decision overturned.

In a 6-3 non-partisan majority, SCOTUS sided with Ramos. They decided that the 6th amendment effectively ensures a guilty verdict must be unanimous, whether it be in federal or state court, doesn’t matter. That the courts should ultimately be consistent in this.

So this decision reverses SCOTUS’ previous decision in Apodaca, and therefore creates a new and contrary precedent. Doing so goes against a principle SCOTUS likes to adhere to called “stare decisis,” the idea that once the court rules on something, they set a precedent that should be consistently applied going forward.

The reason for stare decisis is that the law shouldn’t be a constantly changing thing, merely an evolving thing. That citizens shouldn’t be innocent/acquitted one day of something, but then someone else does the same thing, and is found guilty the next day. You can imagine it would leave all of us wondering whether we’re going to jail or not on an issue where the courts seem to change their mind all the time. No es bueno.

So what does all this mean? Well, it potentially means the people in jail, on a non-unanimous decision, are either going to have to be retried, since their verdicts will now be deemed a mistrial, presumably. Or, they are just probably going to go free now.

Hear oral arguments, read the ruling, and get a synopsis of the case here.

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund

Leave a comment

So this is an environmental maze of nonsense, which is pretty common for the EPA. The Clean Water Act (CWA) mandates something called National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for people putting pollutants into waterways people use, (called navagable) from what they refer to as a point source. So basically, if you have a pipe (point source) that feeds into a river (navagable water), and the water coming out of that port has contaminants in it, you need a fucking permit. Any non-point sources are governed by the EPA outside the CWA.

The county of Maui, gets rid of treated wastewater by pumping it through wells which then seep into the groundwater, and eventually out into the ocean. There were several reports through the 40+ years they’ve been doing this shit, showing that 90% of this treated wastewater makes it to the ocean, and at no point, did anyone from the EPA argue they needed one of the special NPDES permits mentioned above until recently, when the Hawaii Wildlife Fund apparently realized it’s budget was looking weak.

But then a district court decided the Maui County had violated the CWA anyway, because apparently they needed more money. They argued that even though that shit just seeps into the ground water, it’s still something that would fall under the CWA’s rules in spirit, apparently. Because it sure as fuck isn’t a point source feeding into navagable waters as they define it.

Maui argues that since the pollution starts in a well, seeps into the ground, makes its way into the groundwater, and then eventually to the ocean, there’s not a direct link from where they put it, and the ocean, such as a pipe for instance, that drains directly into the ocean.

The 9th circuit agreed with the district court, but Maui County is still convinced this is some bullshit of the highest order, so they’re not asking SCOTUS for help.

In a split 6-3 decision, SCOTUS decided that the CWA’s rules also should encompass a functional equivalent of a direct discharge, and that Maui’s argument is a bullshit technicality they aren’t buying one little bit.

Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas however, wanted to adopt the dead document mantra, and say that the letter of the law is what we’re bound by, and by the letter, Maui makes a good argument.

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Babb v. Wilkie

Leave a comment

Noris Babb, a pharmacist with the VA, started a team of people specifically designed to help elderly veterans with problems unique to elderly veterans. Because of this unique position, they gave Babb the authority to write prescriptions, even though she wasn’t a medical doctor, because her position to some extent required her to be able to do that.

The VA liked her old fart program so much, they created a much larger program modeled after it. During this time, they denied the ability of several pharmacists above fifty years old, while approving the same ability for some younger pharmacists under forty. So these old farts filed an Equal Employment Opportunity claim, stating they were discriminated against because of their terminal and persistent geriatric condition.

Babb, who had this authority decided to support the old farts, and wrote a letter assisting them with their claim. But after she did so, she applied to be a part of this new program, since it was her baby after all, and she was denied.

Presumably, her supporting the old farts against the VA didn’t sit well with the VA, so they added a much larger workload to Babb, which she couldn’t maintain. As a result, they stripped her of the authority to write prescriptions, and denied her involvement in this new program that she helped create, citing her non-compliance with their requirements as their reason.

And to really rub that shit in, they gave the credentials and job to a younger sub-30 year old woman instead.

So Babb was all like, “This is fucking bullshit, you assholes.” So off they go to SCOTUS to determine if she has to prove age was a factor in her being denied the opportunity, in order to make her claim it was age discrimination. It appears she makes a fair case that they retaliated against her, but she’s also claiming age discrimination since the promoted female they chose instead of her was much younger.

SCOTUS, in an 8-1 majority sided with Babb. The ADEA prohibits a federal employer from using age as a consideration when making employment decisions. But they stated that while it doesn’t have to be the but-for cause to win a judgement, the remedy the courts offer should take that into consideration. Only Clarence Thomas disagreed, basically arguing the court wasn’t very specific in its ruling, and would make it much harder for federal agencies to operate going forward.

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Kansas v. Glover

Leave a comment
Fourth Amendment To The U.S. Constitution

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.

Charles Glover was motoring on his merry way when he got pulled over. Why did he get pulled over, you ask? Because police have some high tech shit, and while following, ran his plate, which then notified them that the owner of the car (Charles Glover), had his license revoked. So the cop assumed correctly, it was Glover driving the car, and pulled his dumb ass over.

Once pulled over, he confirmed it was Glover driving, and arrested this stupid motherfucker accordingly.

So Glover was like, “How the fuck you gonna pull me over, with no probable cause to pull me over? Fourth amendment, asshole!”

But the officer was like, “We made an assumption, and we were right, that the motherfucker who owns the car, is the motherfucker driving the car. And don’t act like you’re innocent here, asshole. You were driving without a fucking license.”

So Glover sued in state court to suppress the evidence based on an illegal search, and the state court agreed. Judgement for Glover. Then an appellate court was like, “Hold the fuck on, state court. This is probable cause in our opinion, judgement for Kansas.” But then the Kansas Supreme court was like, “Hold the fuck on, appellate court, the state court got it right. There’s a lot of assuming going on here, in order to do a search without a warrant, and we don’t fucking like it. Judgement for Glover.

So now Kansas is like, “Fuck all this noise. We’re going to SCOTUS, assholes. Because this guilty motherfucker is trying to get away with some bullshit.

Glover’s counsel’s argument was essentially that you have no way of knowing that the owner is driving, especially if the owner’s license is suspended, and assuming they’re not a ne’er-do-well, they probably had someone else drive it for them or whatever.

Whereas Kansas is like, “The phrase is ‘reasonable suspicion’ you assholes. It’s fucking reasonable the owner is driving, even if they’ve lost their license. So reasonable in fact, it was the fucking owner in this case who was driving. Now fuck off with this bullshit.”

In an 8-1 decision, SCOTUS ruled in favor of Kansas, and told Glover to suck balls. They argued it is reasonable to assume the driver of a car, is the owner of said car, baring any contrary information, and thus the cops had the right to pull him over based on what they knew.

Sotomayor, seemingly quite libertarian, was the lone dissenter, saying that such a ruling flips the burden of proof from the government, to the individual, and that’s some straight up bullshit. But apparently the other eight weren’t impressed.