One of Trump’s most contentious policy issues has been tariffs. His argument is that the United States has trade deficits with many other nations, and that this is inherently problematic.
Here’s the issue: it’s not a problem. It never has been.
Think about this: you have a trade deficit with your grocery store. You probably buy from them all the time, but they don’t buy anything from you. Is that a problem? Of course not.
The United States is the largest economy in the world. We have trade deficits with other nations because we have more money to buy their goods than they have to buy ours. Additionally, their goods are often cheaper, while ours are relatively expensive. This is basic capitalism—money flows to those producing the best products at the best prices.
As a result, citizens of other countries—who generally have less disposable income than Americans—are unlikely to purchase U.S. goods even if they wanted to.
President Donald Trump
But let’s discuss problem-solving more broadly.
Imagine I gave you a math problem: 2+2. If you’re unfamiliar with math, you might think the problem is 2-2. If you don’t understand the addition symbol, you’ll never get the right answer. Accurately identifying the problem is essential for finding effective solutions—this is where Trump fails spectacularly.
Once we understand that the reason we don’t export more is that U.S. goods are too expensive compared to those from other countries—and recognize that Trump’s policies haven’t addressed this—it becomes clear that he isn’t solving the problem. In fact, he is likely making it worse, which is why so many economists are predicting a recession.
As president, Trump can influence U.S. policy but has limited power over other nations, aside from imposing tariffs.
This reflects a larger issue: a lack of self-awareness on a national scale. Trump and his supporters fail to consider that the problem may lie within the United States itself. They assume that American manufacturing is flawless and that other countries are taking advantage of us. This perspective is fundamentally flawed.
Global markets are capitalism at the highest level. Other countries are competing and winning because the U.S. is repeating past mistakes—allowing prices to rise due to poor policies, thereby pricing ourselves out of the market. People aren’t willing to pay Mercedes-Benz prices for Volkswagen-quality goods.
If Trump understood that the real issue is the cost of American goods, he would focus on reducing those costs. He could:
Tighten regulations on labor unions to prevent the artificial inflation of labor costs.
Collaborate with Congress to lower the U.S. corporate tax rate, which remains similar to other developed countries. Or better yet, eliminate it altogether. If we want to compete, let’s compete!
Address the restrictive regulatory environment by working with Congress to repeal unnecessary statutes that increase production costs.
Instruct his administration to repeal regulations that add cost without providing clear value.
U.S. Congress
These measures could significantly reduce the cost of U.S. goods. It’s worth noting that generally, no company wants to manufacture outside their home country. The language barriers, compliance costs, shipping challenges, etc., are all very problematic and costly. So improving the above points at home are what would encourage more investment in U.S. production—not just raising the cost of foreign goods.
Trump’s approach is to increase the cost of imported goods to make them comparable in price to U.S. products, under the assumption that this will boost domestic spending and investment. It won’t. Americans generally prefer U.S. goods but often can’t afford them. Raising the cost of alternatives won’t change that.
Companies won’t invest in the U.S. until we fix the issues that make it expensive to do business here, either.
In my experience working for an American professional tool company, we offered both domestically produced and imported tools. The U.S.-made sets often cost around $500+, while comparable sets from Taiwan were priced between $150 and $200. Customers wanted the American-made sets, but most couldn’t afford them and bought the imported ones. If the cheaper options disappear, customers simply won’t buy anything.
It’s also important to note that imported goods support the U.S. economy because they are sold by American vendors. If affordable imports disappear, stores like Walmart will struggle to stock affordable products, leaving low-income families with fewer options.
The global economy naturally directs production to those who can make the best products at the lowest prices. This isn’t about tariffs—it’s about culture, resources, and work ethic.
Work ethic plays a role, as many young Americans are increasingly reluctant to take on labor-intensive, low-paying jobs. We’ve instilled the belief that everyone must go to college, and that low-skilled jobs are beneath them. As a result, fewer people are willing to work in factories.
Trump’s failure to address these fundamental issues has left the economy struggling. Economists are predicting a recession, inflation remains high, and Trump’s focus on tariffs is not addressing the root causes. Meanwhile, his conflicts with the courts and disregard for the Constitution are eroding support among independent voters.
The hope is that as more Americans, including his supporters, recognize the flaws in his approach, Trump will feel compelled to change course. His ego needs to be fed, and as more Americans turn against him, it’s the surest way to get him to embrace change in himself. For the sake of the country, I certainly hope we have a serious culture shift, soon.
When I think Trump is corrupt or willfully doing the wrong thing, I’m pretty harsh in my criticisms of him on “the socials.”
If he’s answering honestly here in this PBS video, then this is not so much me bashing him, as it is me being concerned about him being our president.
To give context, he is asked about the Supreme Court ordering him to effectuate the return of suspected gang member, and known illegal immigrant Kilmar Garcia (Read about this story here, for the unfamiliar), and he replies by saying that the people elected him to deport these folks, and the courts are holding him back from doing it.
So then she asks, “Don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States, as president?”
He responds, “I don’t know. I have to respond by saying again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me. And they are going to, obviously follow what the Supreme Court said. What you said, is not what I heard the Supreme Court said. They have a very different interpretation.”
It should be concerning he doesn’t understand the constitution, and a court order, at such a basic level, when he’s encountered so many of them at this point.
Kilmar Arbrego Garcia
If you follow Trump and his legal issues, as covered by legal scholars and analysts alike, you’ll know he has a history of losing good lawyers.
A good podcast on this subject is called Serious Trouble, hosted by former federal prosecutor, Ken White. If you’re interested in learning law as it pertains to current issues, it’s really hard to think of a better podcast, and it’s largely apolitical.
It is often very critical of Trump, but don’t mistake this as being partisan. It’s quite possible to be a Republican ideologically, and still not like Trump, or to have apolitical reasons for disliking him.
I don’t think Ken White is a Republican, but the point is, he rarely delves into political opinions or questions, just legal analysis. So be sure to check your biases when listening, and just learn.
Former prosecutor Ken White
Anyway, on the issue of Trump losing good lawyers, an analogy would be the support of capitalism many give, and how it works.
If someone were a horrid employer, they’ll lose good employees, either because the employees won’t want to work for them, or the employer will ask them to do things that they know are wrong or immoral. The employee will, of course, refuse to do these directives, which then prompts the bad employer to fire them because they think the employee is being insubordinate, when the reality is the employer is the one out of line asking them to do those things in the first place.
This is precisely the scenario people describe when it comes to Trump and his lawyer troubles. His lawyers either fire Trump as a client, or he fires them, often after they refuse to do something they consider illegal, which could get them disbarred or worse. So Trump ends up with mediocre and ethically challenged lawyers as a result. Not to mention, he seems to have a penchant for hiring lawyers who are subjectively attractive females, for what I assume are not entirely because of their skills at lawyering.
Christina Bobb (Left), Lindsey Halligan (Center), Alina Habba (Right)
By all accounts, he’s been surrounded most of his life by employees or family members, who’ve all enabled him. It’s led him to believe he’s smarter than he is, because he doesn’t have anyone close to him to tell him he’s wrong or out of line growing up.
Penn Jillette talked about this on his podcast, Penn’s Sunday School. Penn was asked to do an interview for a book about Trump. Out of curiosity, he asked the writer, “What do his friends say about him?”
The writer responded that he hadn’t really been able to find any friends to interview. Just employees, and family members.
Penn Jillette
As a result of this sheltered and unchallenged life, it stands to reason he was turned into an entitled jerk who thinks he’s always right, and thinks anyone disagreeing with him is his enemy.
History is littered with stories like this of boy kings, for instance, who would have servants killed for just making eye contact with them.
As much as I find Trump offputting and reprehensible, I do find it sad that this is how he was brought up and how he turned out.
Maybe he was born a sociopath and was always going to be the basic person he is. But maybe he was raised so poorly, that it made him the bad person he is, and things could have been so much better for him with a better upbringing.
Either way, the idea that he doesn’t understand the Constitution in such a simple sense, is very concerning, when it’s his job to uphold it. With some of his other off-the-wall ideas, like changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico, reopening Alcatraz, or his tumultuous application of tariffs, I think it’s fair to ponder the idea that he’s starting to suffer dementia, like Biden and Reagan before him.
He’s Biden’s age—after all—and older than Reagan was during his presidency, so it’s not a crazy notion.
Either way, I think for the sake of our nation, it’s time for Republicans to move on from Trump as soon as possible before more bad things happen, either through corruption, arrogance, ignorance, or senility.
“Right to try” laws have become very contentious in recent years. Because we here at Logical Libertarian pride ourselves on being logical, as you can imagine, our position is that there are two opposing sides of the debate, and the truth is probably somewhere between these ideologies.
Both sides have very valid points, and should be considered. Sadly, what doesn’t happen, is both sides acknowledging the validity of the opposition’s argument, which then might lead to an acceptable solution they both agree is best.
So let’s explore…
First, in one corner, we have the proponents. These are largely libertarian-minded folks like myself. They rightly point out that the FDA approval process for new treatments or medicines is painfully slow.
They’re correct of course, but this is for good reason. When it comes to someone’s life, drugs and treatments shouldn’t be approved willy-nilly. If someone dies because a drug or treatment was harmful, we can’t exactly undo that.
But there’s another problem, even if the drug or treatment is benign.
Where these proponents are correct, are situations where someone has a treatment resistant issue, or an issue with no approved treatment, they’re potentially suffering from a terminal illness, and they’re open to try anything at this point to save their life. In this scenario, it seems to make sense to allow them to try unapproved treatments, because there’s simply no better option available.
I’m very sympathetic to this argument.
In the other corner, we have scientists. They argue that by allowing people to use these unapproved treatments, we’re opening the door to charlatans and snake oil salesmen, scamming desperately ill folks who are grasping at straws.
They’re 100% right that this does happen, and will happen at a higher level, if we allow “right to try” laws to pass unilaterally.
The FDA approval process is slow for a reason. There are multiple steps to show efficacy in non-humans, safety in humans, then eventually controlled studies with large sample sizes in humans. After that, it takes years to potentially understand the long term effects of these treatments.
Until scientists understand the mechanisms, outcomes, drawbacks, side effects, etc., giving doctors the green light to try these things, could do much more harm than good.
In a third corner, is me. A non-doctor, philosophical libertarian, who thinks there might be some middle ground which can be found.
My first argument is that unapproved treatments can be placed into four buckets:
Treatments with no studies/data supporting or rejecting them
Treatments with studies/data supporting them, but not enough to reach FDA approval yet
Treatments with conflicting studies supporting and rejecting them
Treatments with studies/data rejecting them
With these buckets, “right to try” laws could have different rules for each, that allay the fears of scientists, while ensuring the rights of people to try potentially promising treatments are also preserved.
Just to disclose my own bias, I think there should be a constitutional amendment forbidding government to get in between a patient and their licensed physician. When I say licensed physician, I’m referring to someone who went to medical school and has a license to practice medicine. Not homeopaths, naturopaths, chiropractors, or others who don’t have a license to practice medicine, but attempt to pass themselves off as “doctors.” I find such behavior reprehensible, immoral, and arguably criminal. They’re con artists if they actually know what they’re doing, and they’re ignoramuses if they don’t.
I know chiropractors are contentious, and some are certainly better than others. But unless they went to medical school and attained their doctorate, which they didn’t, calling themselves doctors is misleading.
That said, some are at least honest that what they do, provide some temporary relief. But others claim they can cure diseases and such, which are the original claims of chiropractic. That has been thoroughly debunked, and is very irresponsible for any chiropractor to claim.
I hold this idea for an amendment, partly to preserve a woman’s right to have an abortion, especially if her health is at elevated risk. But more generally, just because I think government shouldn’t be passing laws preventing a doctor from performing a treatment that they, and the patient, agree is best for them.
That said, I think government’s most important job, is to protect us from those who would do us harm, including quacks recommending procedures that aren’t backed by an ounce of science (still thinking about Steve Jobs and his choice to treat his cancer with homeopathy).
So I’d reconcile these conflicts of protecting doctor-patient interactions versus protecting patients from malicious practitioners by outlining how I feel about the four buckets above. But understand that first and foremost, my argument to protecting doctor-patient interactions is only about actual medical doctors.
Other so-called health gurus should receive no such protections, and frankly, in my opinion, should mostly be tarred and feathered.
Bucket #1: Treatments with no studies/data supporting or rejecting them
If there are no studies/data supporting them, I’m curious why any doctor would recommend it. But I can imagine a scenario where a doctor has some reason to believe a particular treatment could work, despite no data on it, for or against. That seems to be significantly less likely than charlatans, though.
In this scenario, if a doctor is licensed, that doctor should be required to disclose quite clearly, that there is zero science supporting the idea. But, that the doctor suspects it might be helpful, explain their reasons why, and if the person is willing to take an absolute shot in the dark, then they may proceed.
Bucket #2: Treatments with studies/data supporting them, but not enough to reach FDA approval yet
This is the bucket that I think most people are envisioning when they think of “right to try laws.”
These would be medicines or treatments making their way through the FDA approval process, or being done in other countries with some success, but just aren’t approved here in the United States yet.
Again, let’s assume the position of a well-intentioned physician. They might see the data, and think there’s reason for hope with these. If there’s no approved option for this patient, and the patient has weighed the costs, risks, etc., then by all means, allow them to proceed.
Again, I think it must include full disclosure that it isn’t an approved treatment, and it should be viewed as something to try, only if there aren’t more effective approved treatments, which I think most doctors would choose anyway.
What could get tricky, is if there as an approved treatment that has a low efficacy rate, but there’s this new unapproved treatment that seems to show a much higher efficacy rate, what would a doctor recommend and a patient choose.
We hate to roll the dice on someone’s life, but it’s their life. I think again, as long as they’re well-informed, it should be their choice.
I don’t see an avenue for many charlatans on this path, as they tend to peddle in things which show no efficacy—if there were efficacy, it would be promoted by actual doctors.
Bucket #3: Treatments with conflicting studies supporting and rejecting them
This bucket is admittedly quite challenging. But in the end, since there are some studies showing efficacy, it has some level of hope or promise.
I’d again, make sure that the patient is made fully made aware of the conflicted status, a basic understanding of why it might work, and why it might not, the risks and side effects observed, etc.
From there, the patient can make an informed decision, and move forward.
Bucket #4: Treatments with studies/data rejecting them
For me, this one is pretty easy. It’s not like we don’t have data on these treatments—we do. They have been tested and failed every time.
Of course, any good scientist doesn’t deal in absolutes. Just because there’s no data supporting such treatments doesn’t mean they don’t work. It just means we have no reason to believe it does.
I don’t think any reputable physician should be prescribing such a treatment, and they should be excluded from “right to try” until there is some data to suggest they are safe and effective.
A doctor should inform the patient that such treatments have never been shown to be helpful, and that the doctor, in good conscious, wouldn’t recommend it, lest they be charged with malpractice.
As you may have noticed, in each scenario, I focus on informing the patient thoroughly. This is how I propose the government protect the patient, without standing in the way of preventing a potentially life-saving treatment.
I think these buckets are important, because when many talk about “Right to try” laws, they tend to not differentiate between a treatment which is showing efficacy, versus one that has been thoroughly debunked—those two things should be treated quite differently.
Native of India, Pankajkumar Patel made his way to the United States in the 90’s, but he did so “without inspection.” That’s a fancy term for he was here illegally. In 2012, that shit caught up with him, and was charged by the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) to be removed from the United States, because he had in fact, come to the US illegally.
In the United States, we have an “Adjustment of status” proceeding, which basically is a way for non-citizens, here illegally, to be made legal, without being forced to leave the country and go through the process of obtaining their visa like every other legal immigrant. It is a two-step process where first, they must show eligibility, and then they qualify “in the exercise of discretion.” Which as I read it, basically means, you not only have to prove you’re eligible, but you also have to show there’s a good reason, in the eyes of the United States (in their discretion), you should be allowed to stay. But feel free to click the link and see if you read that differently.
Patel had been working the whole time, and thus, was a productive person here. He claimed this should justify him being allowed to stay. But , Patel made a serious fuck up. He applied for a driver’s license in Georgia, and on the application, he checked the box indicating he was a citizen. He argues it was a mistake, but it is suspicious that maybe he did so, in order to get that shit approved.
This false information led DHS to argue he’s a liar liar, and his pants are on fire, and order her get the fuck out.
So Patel’s case lands in front of an immigration judge, who is more impressed with DHS’s argument than he was Patel’s, and was like, “Sorry bro, you gotta go. We’re not in the business of letting bullshit artists to hand around.”
Patel, not so quick to give up, because it’s pretty fucking great here in the US compared to India, filed for appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). They were however, just as unimpressed as the Immigration Judge, and told him to kick rocks.
Congress passed laws barring federal courts from reviewing these discretionary decisions. So Patel, not being happy about those decisions from the Immigration Judge and the BIA, took his case to the 11th circuit. But the law mentioned above, basically argues the 11th circuit has no business getting involved in this shit. It’s a matter for DHS and Immigration, not the courts, and told him to politely fuck off.
So the question before SCOTUS, is does Patel have the right to ask the federal court to step in and smack down the BIA and Immigration Judge, if they agree with Patel?
In a 5:4 decision, written by Justice Barrett, and joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh, Scotus sided with Merrick Garland, essentially putting the nail in Patel’s coffin. The text of the law was clear in their opinion, that federal courts don’t get to weigh in on such immigration matters.
Justice Gorsuch, with the Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented, basically saying that the law as written gives way too much power to DHS and Immigration, and that’s straight up bullshit.
Read about the case and hear oral argument at the links below.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, 2nd amendment.
While the rest of the country seems intensely focus on whether Roe v. Wade is overturned, a good number of us are pretty interested in how this one goes.
The People’s Republic of New York, the most statist state that ever stated, is under the scrutiny of SCOTUS again, thanks to the New York State Rifle Association (NYSRA), and their crusade against New York’s tyrannical positions on guns.
The latest kerfuffle is over permits to carry. You see, New York knows they can’t ban guns outright, but they have done everything in their power to make sure you can’t actually wield it.
One of these rules is that in order to carry a gun on your person in New York, you must apply for a permit, and show cause for getting one, such as someone has been threatening you, or you’re in some high-risk job.
This seems totally fair, right? Criminals are always courteous enough to give you a heads up that they’re coming for you, so you can apply for such a permit, buy a gun, and be prepared.
Counsel for NYSRA opened by saying, “Carrying a firearm outside the home is a fundamental constitutional right. It is not some extraordinary action that requires an extraordinary demonstration of need.”
We’re of course biased here at Logical Libertarian towards the freedom to own and carry a gun, but few other rights, if any, allow the state to make you prove your desire to exercise that right. This is highly “atypical” as Counsel Paul Clement put it. The bill of rights specifically says, “to keep and bear arms,” but NY’s law effectively makes “bearing” a privilege the state grants you, not a right.
For instance, you don’t have to go to the Mayor and get a permit to tell your local conseltwerp to eat a bag of dicks, and then be required to supply a load of evidence to suggest said counseltwerp has a demonstrable need to eat that bag of dicks.
Justices Barrett, Roberts, Alito, and Kagen all pressed NYSRA’s counsel on the “sensitive places” allowances. This is the idea that the majority of justices agreed in previous decisions, the government has a right to refuse carrying in places like schools, government buildings, etc. So they were testing the idea of whether NY is just basically declaring the entirety of a city or district, can be deemed a “sensitive place.” The crux of the argument being, when is it OK to declare a place a sensitive place, versus when is the place to broad to be declared as much.
One thing to note, in the sensitive place issue, people still have the right to carry in general, and even if they have a permit, they can’t carry in a sensitive place, so it seems a little disingenuous to debate. The law in question forces people to get a permit to carry in general. The sensitive places restricts anyone other than law enforcement from carrying in that particular place. While they’re related, they are not the same.
Counsel for NYSRA stated succinctly:
At the end of the day, I think what it means to give somebody a constitutional right is that they don’t have to satisfy a government official that they have a really good need to exercise it or they face atypical risks.
~Paul Clement
Counsel Clement went on to point out that while they accept the “sensitive places” limits, and even limits on who can carry, such as criminals and people with mental illness, their side opposes the “atypical” stance NY has adopted. Meaning, that NY is essentially saying a typical person may not carry, only a person who’s atypical, such as someone at elevated risk, is the problem. It can’t be a right, if one has to be unique to exercise it.
One issue that also comes up, is tradition. SCOTUS like to make sure laws are adjudicated consistently, so people who were perfectly OK one day, aren’t criminals the next. Change should come gradually, and not sweeping and fast.
They’ll look at old law, sometimes even English law adopted prior to the Constitution, but which the Constitution got it’s basis from. Sotomayor wanted to cite traditional laws restricting weapons, which states have adopted, many of which American law is inspired by.
She stated:
The one thing that I’ve looked at in this history is the plethora of regimes that states pick, and that starts in English law, through the colonies, through post-Constitution, to post-Civil War, to the 19th Century, to even now, those 43 states that you’re talking about, most of them didn’t give unrestricted rights to carry in one form or another until recent times. Before recent times, there were so many different regulations.
What it appears to me is that the history tradition of carrying weapons is that states get a lot of deference on this.
And the one deference that you haven’t addressed is the question presented is what’s the law with respect to concealed weapons. In 1315, the British Parliament specifically banned the carrying of concealed arms.
In colonial America, at least four, if not five, states restricted concealed arms. After the Civil War, there were many, many more states, some include it in their constitution, that you can have a right to arms but not concealed. You can go to Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana, which are now more open—more free in granting the right to carry guns, but they prohibited through their history concealed weapons, the carrying of concealed weapons.
It seems to me that if we’re looking at that history and tradition with respect to concealed arms that there is not the same requirement that there is in the home. One of the things Heller pointed to was there were few regulations that prohibited the carrying or the keeping of arms in homes. But that’s not true with respect to the regulations about keeping of arms outside of homes. Putting aside the prohibitions, regulations on sensitive places, regulations on the types of people, it seems to me that I don’t know how I get past all that history
~Justice Sotomayor
But justice Kavanaugh, speaking with Clement reiterated that rights start with the Constitution’s text, not tradition or other laws. So basically, Sotomayor’s argument was stupid, and she should shut the fuck up with that noise.
As counsel Underwood for the state of NY came to make her shitty arguments, Justice Roberts hit a home run with this question:
Now Heller relied on the right to defense as a basis for its reading of the Second Amendment, or that was its reading. Now I would think that arises in more populated areas.
If you’re out in the woods, presumably, it’s pretty unlikely that you’re going to run into someone who’s going to rob you on the street.
On the other hand, there are places in a densely populated city where it’s more likely that that’s where you’re going to need a gun for self-defense and, you know, however many policemen are assigned, that, you know, there are high-crime areas. And it seems to me that what you’re saying is that’s probably the last place that someone’s going to get a permit to carry a gun. How is that, regardless of what we think of the policy of that, how is that consistent with Heller’s reasoning that the reason the Second Amendment applies a direct personal right is for self-defense?
~Chief Justice Roberts
Counsel Underwood argued:
Well, and the other thing is that these regulations are all an effort to accommodate the right, to recognize and respect the right of self-defense while regulating it to protect the public safety.
And in areas where people are packed densely together, as the questioning that just happened displays, the risks of harm from people who are packed shoulder to shoulder, all having guns, are much more acute.
~Barbara Underwood
Justice Roberts, realizing this argument was weak, countered with:
What if it’s one of these crime waves, whether it’s a celebrated spate of murders carried out by a particular person, I don’t know who that is—you know, the Son of Sam or somebody else? Is that a good reason to—a atypical reason? Is that a justification? Some random person is going around shooting people.
I’d like to have a firearm even though I didn’t feel the need for one before?
~Chief Justice Roberts
Justice Alito, not to shy away from this line of questioning, pushed Underwood further by asking:
Could I explore what that means for ordinary law-abiding citizens who feel they need to carry a firearm for self-defense? So I want you to think about people like this, people who work late at night in Manhattan, it might be somebody who cleans offices, it might be a doorman at an apartment, it might be a nurse or an orderly, it might be somebody who washes dishes. None of these people has a criminal record.
They’re all law-abiding citizens.
They get off work around midnight, maybe even after midnight.
They have to commute home by subway, maybe by bus.
When they arrive at the subway station or the bus stop, they have to walk some distance through a high-crime area, and they apply for a license, and they say: Look, nobody has said I am going to mug you next Thursday.
However, there have been a lot of muggings in this area, and I am scared to death. They do not get licenses, is that right?
How is that consistent with the core right to self-defense, which is protected by the Second Amendment?
~Justice Alito
Counsel Underwood’s arguments in response again were that basically, a lot of people crowded together with guns, is inherently an unsafe situation, and thus why NY should have the right to prevent such a situation. An argument not supported by any evidence, but commonly argued as justification for restricting gun rights.
Justice Alito really went after her in this exchange:
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
There are — there are a lot of armed people on the streets of New York and in the subways late at night right now, aren’t there?
Barbara D. Underwood
I don’t know that there are a lot of armed people.
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
No?
Barbara D. Underwood
I think there are people —
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
How many — how many —
Barbara D. Underwood
— there are people with illegal guns if that’s what you’re —
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about.
Barbara D. Underwood
— referring to. Yeah.
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
How many illegal guns were seized by the — by the New York Police Department last year? Do you — do you have any idea?
Barbara D. Underwood
I don’t have that number, but I’m sure there’s a — it’s a substantial number.
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
But the people — all — all these people with illegal guns, they’re on the subway —
Barbara D. Underwood
I don’t — I don’t —
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
— they’re walking around the streets, but the ordinary hard-working, law-abiding people I mentioned, no, they can’t be armed?
Barbara D. Underwood
Well, I think the subways, when there are problems on the subways, are protected by the — the — the transit police, is what happens, because the idea of proliferating arms on the subway is precisely, I think, what terrifies a great many people. The other point is that proliferating guns in a populated area where there is law enforcement jeopardizes law enforcement because, when they come, they now can’t tell who’s shooting, and the — the — the — the shooting proliferates and accelerates.
And, in the end, that’s why there’s a substantial law enforcement interest in not having widespread carrying of guns in densely —
As you can see, NY’s laws are common among anti-gun legislators, that the people should rely on government to protect them, as she points out the transit police. While it may be a compelling argument to people who don’t like guns, it’s antithetical to the principles this country is founded on.
Justice Kavanaugh, took issue with her underlying premise that the state can and should be able to restrict guns in densely populated areas because that’s inherently dangerous, arguing:
Has that happened in those states? I mean, can you make a comparative judgment? Because it seems like before you impose more restrictions on individual citizens and infringe their constitutional rights based on this theory, you should have to show, well, in those other states that have shall issue regimes, actually, there is a lot more accidents, crime.
And I don’t see any real evidence of that.
~Justice Kavanaugh
He clearly felt her justification was based on dubious, if not an entirely fabricated premise. While she responded with generalities that she seemed to thing we should just accept as true, no data was provided.
The United States (The Biden Administration and their merry band of assholes) had an amici also argue, but again, Justice Roberts wasn’t having any of his bullshit. He fired this salvo:
John G. Roberts, Jr.
I mean, what is the appropriate analysis? I mean, you sort of — we — we, I think, generally don’t reinvent the wheel.
I mean, the first thing I would look to in answering this question is not the Statute of Northampton, it’s Heller, and Heller has gone through all this stuff and, obviously, in a somewhat different context, although that’s part of the debate, self-defense at home.
You know, this is different. But I still think that you have to begin with — with Heller and its recognition that the Second Amendment, you know, it — it has its own limitations, but it is to be interpreted the same way you’d interpret other provisions of the Constitution. And I wonder what your best answer is to the point that Mr. Clement makes in his brief, which is that, for example, if you’re asserting a claim to confront the witnesses against you under the Constitution, you don’t have to say I’ve got a special reason, this is why I think it’s important to my — my defense. The Constitution gives you that right. And if someone’s going to take it away from you, they have to justify it.
You don’t have to say when you’re looking for a permit to speak on a street corner or whatever that, you know, your speech is particularly important. So why do you have to show in this case, convince somebody, that you’re entitled to exercise your Second Amendment right?
Brian H. Fletcher
So let me start with the general question and then get to that specific point for Mr. Clement. As to the general question about Heller, we agree completely that the Court ought to apply the method from Heller, which we, like I think all the parties, take to be look to the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment right, and we’re applying that now to a somewhat different issue with the benefit of somewhat broader materials. Now, as to the question about why you have to have a showing of need, I think the problem with Mr. Clement’s formulation is that it assumes the conclusion. If you had a right, the Second Amendment conferred a right to carry around a weapon for possible self-defense just because an individual wants to have one available, then, obviously, you couldn’t take away that right or make it contingent upon a discretionary determination. But the whole question is whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms confers that right to have a pistol with you for self-defense even absent a showing of demonstrated need.
John G. Roberts, Jr.
Well, I’m not sure that’s right.
I mean, you would — regardless of what the right is, it would be surprising to have it depend upon a permit system.
You can say that the right is limited in a particular way, just as First Amendment rights are limited, but the idea that you need a license to exercise the right, I think, is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights.
A district court and the Second Circuit in New York, being sympathetic to New York’s tyrannical scheme dismissed NYSRA’s claims, but luckily for New Yorkers, SCOTUS think those courts are basically idiots.
In a 6:3 split partisan decision, where Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor dissented, arguing that states should have the necessary powers to reduce gun violence, even if it involves violating fundamental rights, Justice Thomas laid down the law. New York State’s law violates the 14th amendment (the one that guarantees equal protection and shit), denying some people their second amendment rights. He rightly points out, as was argued, no other right has this burden, so why is the second amendment special? Justice Alito added that a right is a right, whether you intend to lower murders by gun is fucking irrelevant.
Roberts and Kavanaugh agreed, but pointed out that background checks, mental health checks, and other checks to make sure someone is the type of person we agree shouldn’t carry are fine, but that has a foundation in that it’s a right until you prove you’re not someone who should be allowed to exercise that right, where as what NY did, was say you don’t have the right, until you prove you need it, and this shit just ain’t OK.
Hear oral arguments and/or read about the case here.
Do you remember hearing something about a case a long time ago, I think it was called Roe v. Wade? I hear it’s kinda famous. Well anyway, ever since, people rolling around with a Jesus fish on their car, have been on a crusade to do something about that. Especially the ones rolling around in Texas.
In Roe v. Wade, SCOTUS recognized you have two competing rights. A female’s bodily autonomy, versus the life of a fetus. But a fetus has never really been legally ruled as a life with constitutional rights, although it’s never been ruled out either. So back in the day, SCOTUS came up with a trimester system, where the first trimester, a woman’s bodily autonomy was the prevailing right, the second trimester they were somewhat equal, and the third trimester, the fetus had the prevailing right. Seemed fair to any fair minded person, but still the war rages on.
The latest battle on this front took place in Texas, and their fancy new SB8 abortion law. Knowing they couldn’t directly contradict Roe v. Wade’s precedent, Texas went for the most inventive shit ever. They passed a law that said, if you received an abortion, or were the physician who performed one, you could be sued by anyone in the great state of Texas. So they didn’t make it a criminal action, which was their way of not going against the Roe precedent, but they made it so it could cost people so much money, they wouldn’t do it.
They argued that they concede the first six weeks of pregnancy, but opponents argue six weeks can be nearly impossible to have cause to think one is pregnant, and give them the time needed to make the decision and have the procedure. One would basically need to take a pregnancy test shortly after each time they had sex to do all that within the time frame Texas set forth.
In steps Whole Women’s Health (WWH), a Texas abortion provider who submitted a petition to SCOTUS, that just said, “WTF is this bullshit?”
Originally, they asked SCOTUS to block the law, but they declined to do so. So now that it’s in effect, SCOTUS is hearing the case on their normal merits docket. So the question facing them is, can government pass a law that violates precedent, if the precedent pertained to criminal law, and this new law is merely civil litigation?
This particular case hinges around state officials who were sued by abortion providers for violating their constitutional rights as outlined in Roe v. Wade, and Mark Dickson, who most abortion providers consider to be a Jesus freak and all around asshole. They expect him to be the overzealous douchebag suing people left and right over this.
The government officials were like, “We have sovereign immunity, or whatever the fuck you call it. You can’t be suing us like this.”
Also interesting to note, when they asked SCOTUS to put the law on hold, SCOTUS declined to do so, because they were like, “you’re asking us to prevent the government from enforcing the law, but the way this fucktwats wrote it, they don’t enforce it, the people do, by suing providers. So we can’t force them to stop doing something the law doesn’t have them doing in the first place.” This of course supports Texas’ creativity in passing this in the first place.
Counsel for WWH came out swinging, and declared shenanigans. Counsel flat out accused them of blatantly violating Roe v. Wade precedent, then trying to be clever and using the whole civil litigation scheme to get around it.
When questioned by Justice Roberts about this scenario where people are being sued trying to exercise a constitutional right, counsel for Texas argued that there was precedent for this. People are sued for lawful possession of a firearm all the time, and they’re just trying to exercise they’re 2nd amendment right. So what’s the big fucking deal suing people for trying to exercise their constitutional right to bodily autonomy as identified in Roe v. Wade.
In a unanimous decision, SCOTUS sided with Whole Women’s Health. They they can in fact proceed to a pre-enforcement challenge of this ridiculous law. Furthermore, Justice Roberts, along with Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor were like, “What the fuck is even the purpose of our judicial review if punks like these assholes in Texas can just skirt our rulings with creative bullshit like this. We need to nip this shit in the bud right meow.”
As was mentioned in Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson, Texas’ SB8 Heartbeat Abortion Bill is being questioned in this case, also. Who doesn’t love a good abortion debate, right? Clearly SCOTUS, does, because they took on two of them.
This one is merely to decide whether the federal government can sue the state of Texas in federal court to stop them from enforcing a law that they deem is unconstitutional.
While the law was passed while Donald “The Chosen One” Trump was president, giving Texas a friend in the Whitehouse, Joe “Brandon Brown” Biden is president now, and he’s all about what women want, as long as he can smell their hair later. So he was like, “Look how fucking woke I am, all you hot bitches, I’ll sue Texas for you.”
Originally, they asked US District Judge Robert Pitman to put the law on hold, and he was like, “Sure dude, I’ll pump the brakes on that shit for you.” He was like, “Texas, this is the shadiest fucking scheme I’ve ever seen to prevent judicial review. I admit it’s creative, but seriously, fuck you.”
Texas was like, “Fuck that guy,” so they went to the 8th circuit, and complained Pitman hurt their feelings. The 8th circuit was like, “Awww, sorry Texas, you need your woobie? Here, have a sucker. Also, we’ll tell Pitman to get fucked for you.” With that, the law was back on track.
While all this shit was happening, Biden and team went to SCOTUS and were like, “Seriously, this is getting ridiculous, can you please step in?”
SCOTUS was like, “We’re not halting the halt of the halt. Fuck you. But fine, we’ll fast track these fucking cases at least, and resolve this petulant bullshit once and for all.
Counsel for Biden’s team launched a scathing opening salvo, arguing:
Elizabeth B. Prelogar
Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: Texas designed S.B. 8 to thwart the supremacy of federal law in open defiance of our constitutional structure.
States are free to ask this Court to reconsider its constitutional precedents, but they are not free to place themselves above this Court, nullify the Court’s decisions in their borders, and block the judicial review necessary to vindicate federal rights. As this case comes to the Court, there are three principal questions: First, is Texas responsible for this law? Second, can the United States sue to hold Texas to account? And, third, is the injunctive relief available? And the answer is yes down the line. Texas is responsible for the constitutional violation here.
It enacted a law that clearly violates this Court’s precedents.
It designed that law to thwart judicial review by offering bounties to the general public to carry out the state’s enforcement function, and it structured those enforcement proceedings to be so burdensome and to threaten such significant liability that they chill the exercise of the constitutional right altogether. The United States has a manifest sovereign interest in suing to redress this violation.
S.B. 8 is a brazen attack on the coordinate branches of the federal government. It’s an attack on the authority of this Court to say what the law is and to have that judgment respected across the 50 states.
And it’s an attack on Congress’s determination that there should be access to pre-enforcement review in federal court to vindicate federal rights.
The United States may sue to protect the supremacy of federal law against this attack. Finally, the injunction is a proper response to Texas’s unprecedented law.
If Texas can nullify Roe and Casey in this manner, then other states could do the same with other constitutional rights or other decisions of this Court that they disfavor. Federal courts are not powerless to craft relief to stop that intolerable threat to our constitutional hierarchy.
When counsel for Texas came to the table with his creative arguments, the justices were quick to point out, what would happen if a communist state like New York or California decided that guns weren’t an individual right, and passed similar laws to hold gun owners civilly liable for exercising their 2nd amendment right?
Justice Kagan even went on to ask:
Elena Kagan
I mean, if that’s right, you know, and we say that, we would live in a very different world from the world we live in today.
Essentially, we would be inviting states, all 50 of them, with respect to their un-preferred constitutional rights, to try to nullify the law of — that this Court has laid down as to the content of those rights. I mean, that was something that until this law came along no state dreamed of doing. And, essentially, we would be like, you know, we’re open for business — you’re open for business.
There’s — there’s — there’s — there’s nothing the Supreme Court can do about it.
Guns, same sex marriage, religious rights, whatever you don’t like, go ahead.
The response from Texas’ counsel was full-blown legalese. I read it three times, heard it audibly, still don’t have a fucking clue what he’s trying to argue. I don’t think Justice Kagan was impressed either.
After listening to both sides, SCOTUS was like, “We can’t even…” and just dismissed the case entirely, saying, “We never should’ve bothered with shit in the first place, and we can’t be bothered to write an opinion. You’re all assholes. As such, the application to vacate the stay that was applied was denied.
log·i·cal: capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion lib·er·tar·i·an: an advocate of the doctrine of free will; a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action
The Logical Libertarian™ 