Category Archives: Libertarianism

Libertarianism

Average Joe SCOTUS: Mississippi v. Tennessee

Leave a comment

In what promises to be another snoozefest, we have another case that SCOTUS has as part of their original docket. Meaning, it’s not a case they choose to hear, it’s a case they have to hear.

In a case involving the two state with the most double letters in their name, Mississippi have beef over some water with Tennessee. The Middle Claiborne Aquifer is fucking huge. It spans several states including these two assholes.

Not sure what an aquifer is? Neither was I. It’s basically, underground rock which is porous and stores a lot of water inside it. So forget about the rock for a minute, just think of it as a huge lake that spans the states, but you can’t fucking see it, because it’s underground.

Tennessee’s Memphis Light, Water & Gas Division pumps a lot of water out of that mother fucker from wells in Tennessee, but near the Mississippi border. Mississippi expects a certain amount of water from it, too. They argue they can’t get what they want, because those greedy assholes in Tennessee take too much from near the border, which basically depletes Mississippi’s portion as it flows to Tennessee when they pump water out.

They claim that their own groundwater goes down into the aquifer. But when Tennessee pumps water from their side, Mississippi’s groundwater flows into Tennessee, and therefore, they lose it.

Anyway, the courts have in the past appointed a special master to sort this shit out. They try to make sure that states which share a body of water, get their fair share of that water, and one isn’t fucking over the other.

Typically, the courts use an “equitable apportionment” rule to rivers and shit. But this is the first time an aquifer is the source of the dispute. Mississippi is hoping to make the case that it doesn’t apply to groundwater. Presumably because what Tennessee is taking, isn’t that dissimilar to what one would expect in a similar dispute over a river.

The idea is that Mississippi probably has a much larger chunk of water underneath than Tennessee, so they think they should get more of the water that’s there, whereas Tennessee would argue they should get an equal cut.

Normally, the equitable apportionment rule weighs several factors, one of which is that the complaining state has to show how they were harmed by the other state’s taking of the water, putting a larger burden on Mississippi.

The bottom line is, this seems like some pretty amazing creativity on Mississippi’s part. The nature of water is that it fucking flows. Whether it’s above ground in a river, or below ground in an aquifer, that’s what water fucking does.

The idea that Mississippi is going to act like this groundwater is somehow supposed to be treated different than river water is a pretty big stretch in my mind. But fuck it, might as well waste the court’s time with this bullshit.

Justice Clarence Thomas came out asking if there was any previous cases where somehow, someone was taking water from a shared source, but not entering the property of the other state, and the courts offered a remedy that wasn’t “equitable apportionment.”

Justice Roberts and Justice Kagan also seemed as baffled as I am about how this could possibly be anything different than an equitable apportionment situation.

Read this bit of the transcript to see an argument only a lawyer could love. It is clear, he’s hoping they just won’t get that he’s full of shit.

John G. Roberts, Jr.

Well, what other cases would you — putting aside water, what other cases would you admit are subject to equitable apportionment?

John V. Coghlan

Your Honor, I’m not sure, and I’m not sure the equitable apportionment should or should not apply as a concept to groundwater.

I think there are reasons why, based on the nature of groundwater, it might not make sense. But I think the Court doesn’t need to address that question about whether or not equitable apportionment should apply to groundwater because, as I say, this is a different type of injury.

This is an injury where one state is reaching across the border and exercising control beyond its sovereign territory.

John G. Roberts, Jr.

Putting aside your reaching across the border, I mean, in — in the absence — you — you concede, don’t you, that the aquifer flows from Mississippi into Tennessee?

John V. Coghlan

We — we concede that there is some water that crosses the border, yes.

John G. Roberts, Jr.

Well, I suppose then you’re — you’re not saying that there’s no equitable apportionment of that water?

John V. Coghlan

I think, Your Honor, our point is that whether or not aquifers and groundwater should be subject to equitable apportionment is not the legal issue that we’re presenting before the Court. What we’re presenting is does Tennessee have the right to control the resource beyond Tennessee’s sovereign boundaries in Mississippi when Mississippi has not waived its sovereign right over control of that groundwater.

Elena Kagan

I’m not sure I understand that, Mr. Coghlan.

I mean, you’re not now saying that this is not an interstate water.

You’re conceding that it is an interstate water, is that correct?

John V. Coghlan

I don’t know that we’re conceding it, Justice Kagan.

Elena Kagan

You’re saying that you win even if it is an interstate water, is that correct?

John V. Coghlan

That’s correct.

Elena Kagan

Okay.

So you’re saying it’s irrelevant whether it’s an interstate water or not?

John V. Coghlan

That’s correct.

Elena Kagan

So let’s assume that it is an interstate water.

John V. Coghlan

Okay.

Elena Kagan

And you’re saying that the reason you should win is because — is because what? Because Mississippi is essentially doing something unnatural to have access to that interstate water? What —

John V. Coghlan

I’d say, Your Honor, it’s that Tennessee —

Elena Kagan

Tennessee, excuse me.

John V. Coghlan

That Tennessee is exercising control over groundwater while it is located within Mississippi’s sovereign territory.

Elena Kagan

Well, but Tennessee is doing things, I think you admitted, in — in — in one of the questions that Justice Thomas put to you — Tennessee is acting entirely within its own borders.

It is having effects on Mississippi, but that’s the case with respect to people using a flowing river, that if there’s a — a flowing river, Tennessee might be taking water from it, which has effects in Mississippi. So why is it any different?

John V. Coghlan

Justice Kagan, where I would disagree with you is that Tennessee is acting entirely within its own borders.

Their — their wells are physically located in Tennessee, but this pumping is creating a unnatural area of effect that’s predictable, measurable, and controllable, and that area of effect is having physical effect, unnatural —

Elena Kagan

Well, it’s have —

John V. Coghlan

— physical effects —

Elena Kagan

— it’s — it’s predictable, measurable, and controllable when an upstream state takes a lot of water from a river that that will leave the downstream state with less water.

All of that is predictable in the exact same way that one state is harming another, and yet we turn to equitable apportionment to deal with that.

John V. Coghlan

And I think, Your Honor, the difference as — as I — in this case is that in all of the Court’s equitable apportionment cases, the state who’s, you know, unnaturally having an effect on the water by taking and removing water is acting, and the effect of that is occurring — the direct effect of that is occurring entirely within the state’s sovereign territory and that whether or not the water ultimately doesn’t reach the downstream state because it doesn’t flow there is — is incidental, whereas, here, there is a direct intentional effect. The — the — the purpose of pumping is to move water.

And Tennessee is putting these wells next to the border, creating a vacuum, and of — of a measurable area of effect, and intentionally pulling the water out of Mississippi and exercising control, direct control I would say, over that groundwater while it is within Mississippi’s sovereign territory.

If you’re still as confused as I am as to what their justification is for treating this situation any different than others, then welcome to my world.

It should be pointed out, Mississippi is seeking millions in monetary damages, and Tennessee’s counsel was not shy about suggesting this was just an attempted money grab by Mississippi.

So now SCOTUS has to decide if Mississippi’s damages claim is legit, or some bullshit.

In a unanimous decision, SCOTUS agreed, Mississippi were being whiny little bitches, and Tennessee doesn’t owe them shit. Equitable apportionment was awarded, and Mississippi doesn’t get any more than that.

Hear oral arguments here

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/143-orig

Read about the case here

In term-opener, justices will hear Mississippi’s complaint that Tennessee is stealing its groundwater
Drug Use, Libertarianism, SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Terry v. United States

Leave a comment

Eons ago, back in 2008, Tarahrick Terry, some random fucking crackhead, got his dumb ass busted with some crack—about 4 grams. To put that in perspective, a nickel is 5 grams. So basically, it was mountains of the stuff (sarcasm).

Because we have many drug laws written in an era that racism was still quite prevalent in government, crack cocaine, the drug of choice for the black community back then (it’s cheaper than regular cocaine), carries a much more severe penalty than regular cocaine, the drug white people tended to use, that is more expensive. At the time, it was a 100:1 ratio, which is fucking crazy. And while some people throw around racism pretty willy nilly, this law was in fact passed with intent to control the black population at the heart of it.

Terry was sent up the pokey for 188 months for his indiscretion! Over fifteen fucking years, for having some recreational crack on him. Fucking crazy!

In more modern times, this bill came to be a shining example of systemic racism, and in 2010, then president Barack Obama signed a bill reducing the 100:1 disparity down to 18:1. Because apparently the non-racist 1:1 number wasn’t deemed proper, a little racism is still apparently important to keep the wheels of justice turning.

Terry, seeing an opportunity to reduce his sentence by making the new standard retroactive, challenged his sentence in court. He was like, “Y’all motherfuckers knew this was wrong, and some racist bullshit, which is why you passed this new fucking law. I get it, I’m guilty and broke your dumb fucking laws, but my sentence is fucked up and you need to reduce it.”

In 2018, congress and Donald Trump passed the First Step Act, making sentencing reforms retroactive, allowing past offenders to be resentenced. Because you know, Donald Trump was a total bigot and hated black people (sarcasm). While I was no fan of Trump, I think the argument he was akin to some KKK person, was absolute nonsense, and while he was a grade A asshole, he was painted out to be an even bigger asshole than he really was. But anyway, moving on.

So here’s where it gets kinda silly. Aside from the 100:1 disparity, they also adjusted the tiers. The tiers were tier three = 0-5 grams, tier two = 5-50 grams, and tier one = 50+. The more you had, the bigger the sentence you got, since it would seem you were a dealer, not a user.

In the First Step Act, congress made tier one 280 grams and above, and tier two 28-280 grams. One would think then, that tier three was now 0-28 grams, right? RIGHT? Well, those no math doing motherfuckers didn’t fucking adjust tier three. It’s still 0-5 grams. So apparently, if you have between 5 and 28, you hit Bingo and and you’re free to go?

Now, here’s where Terry gets fucked. The First Step Act allowed for people whose sentences were modified by the law, to get resentenced. But as I just mentioned, tier three wasn’t fucking modified. So the courts were like, “Fuck you Terry, you aren’t part of this shit. Rot in jail, motherfucker.”

In a unanimous decision, the court ruled against Terry, and probably not uncoincidentally, the court’s only black justice, Clarence Thomas, wrote the opinion.

At first glance, one might think this is the court supporting systemic racism to it’s core. However, knowing the court still has three left wing justices who are the last people to support racism, it’s clear they were abiding by the text of the law, and effectively telling congress it’s their job to fucking fix this. That 5-28 golden spot is blatantly there for all to see, and it’s up to them to amend the law to cover that gap as they should have the first time they wrote it.

In their concurrence, they make clear that according to the law, if Terry were busted today for the same thing, he’d get the same sentence. So even if they overturn this, otherwise will befall the same fate. In her opinion, Sotomayor, made clear that the disparity between crack and cocaine was ridiculous, and was a clearly racist law. However, that was not the question they were faced. Hopefully, a new congress and a new president will see fit to fix this nonsense once and for all.

Read about the case and/or hear oral arguments at Oyez here or at SCOTUSBlog here.

Libertarianism, SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average JOE SCOTUS: Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta

Leave a comment

We all know the People’s Republic of California love to rule with an iron fist, right? Well, federal regulations require charities to disclose a list of their major donors, to help protect those donor’s interests, in case those charities are doing some shady shit.

Well, California, believing themselves to be better than the federal government are requiring companies give them donor names and addresses as well. Here’s the rub.

California has had breeches of these lists, and leaked that info to the public. So for instance, if some dude has a hard on for Jesus, and donates to an anti-abortion group, Californians outs that motherfucker as an “anti women’s rights” person, when they had no desire to have their position publicly outed. While we here at Logical Libertarian are pro-choice, we consider a pro-life stance a fair belief to have, and that belief has nothing to do with women’s rights, it has everything to do with giving basic human rights to a human life that merely hasn’t exited the womb yet.

No one who’s pro choice is out there pushing to take away women’s rights in any other way. This is merely a misleading tactic to get people to join their side.

So charity Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and their peers are arguing this is a violation of their first amendment rights to freely associate, because it might deter them from otherwise donating to their cause.

They hear California’s argument that it’s to help prevent charities fraud, but they’re like, California never even uses that information to do that, all they do is fucking leak it when they don’t like people. Not to mention, the IRS already has that info.

In the words of the defense:

Because the attorney general has failed to take measures to adequately protect the Schedule B forms, some donors will consider the Attorney General’s scheme and reasonably conclude that the risks of disclosure are too great.

The group cited that California employees themselves, posted over 1800 of these forms on a public website, just to out donors they disliked.

California contends, this doesn’t directly prevent anyone from freely associating, so they’re calling bullshit. If people believe in a charity, they can donate to it all they want, we just want to know about it, and we may tell the world about it because we’re assholes.

So throughout the case, the terms strict scrutiny and exacting scrutiny have been bandied about. The petitioner’s want a strict scrutiny ruling. Which seems to mean that if the state wants this info, it has to go about getting it in the least intrusive way possible, and this isn’t it.

However, the state is arguing that an exacting scrutiny standard should be applied, and because this law doesn’t actually have a component to prevent free association, the petitioner’s argument is bullshit. They’re not associating because they’re afraid of being publicly outed, not because the state is preventing it. So it’s not EXACTLY preventing free association.

A handful of whiny twats in congress for the DNC asked Justice Barrett to recuse herself, since Americans for Prosperity donated heavily to help ensure she was confirmed to the supreme court. She was unimpressed with their argument, and did in fact participate. She’s nominated for life, after all, so there’s no power they hold over her, and she has no reason to side against what she thinks is right. This is likely an attempt at Democrats to both get more information for Commie Cali, and to attack Barrett for her Christianity again, as they did when she was confirmed.

We here at Logical Libertarian are also atheist, but we find these attacks on her religion equally disgusting as misrepresenting anti-abortion arguments.

Anyway, back to the case. California’s argument is that they need this info to investigate charities fraud. But the petitioner is like, “That’s some fucking bullshit. They never use this info for that. They never investigate charities fraud proactively, to where they’d need this info on hand. They only fucking investigate when there’s an actual accusation of fraud or some shit, in which case, they send an audit letter, or subpoena the info. So there’s no need to have this shit ahead of time.

Gorsuch, going after California, pushed on the right to privacy issue specifically, asking if the first amendment’s right to peaceably assemble also assumes some level of privacy, to which she responded it did. So then Gorsuch asked her to draw a distinction between California charities disclosed up front, and say some company being forced to send their company Christmas card list, to see if they’re friends with anyone government cares about, or who they’ve dated in the past so they try to compile data on who people end up marrying?

Counsel danced around this, in saying that if the people in question had a fear of reprisal, they could certainly argue that as a reason why not to disclose such info. But notice that this flips the script, and argues that government has a right to demand it, and it can only be thwarted if the people cite a reason why, as opposed to the people have a right not to disclose it, until government proves it has a compelling interest that supersedes their right to privacy. And this is why it’s Communist California, and not a state which gives a fuck about rights in any meaningful way.

Gorsuch however, interrupted her and said, “assume there’s no reprisal whatsoever.”

Here response:

Aimee A. Feinberg

I think that would be very difficult because, in that situation, there would be a significant burden on intimate association.

There would very likely be a significant burden resulting from public dissemination of that kind of information. And, as a result, the government would have to come forward with a commensurately strong justification, and it wouldn’t be clear to me in that context what that interest would be.

Call me crazy, but she ultimately just made the argument for the petitioner’s.

In a 6:3 partisan decision, liberty won out. The conservatives protected the 1st amendment rights of charitable donors against the commie assholes in California. The dissenters argued that this is a pretty creative interpretation of the first amendment, and opens the door to other shaky 1A arguments. But you know what, fuck those assholes. California was out of line, and I don’t mind saying it.

Hear oral arguments or read about the case, here.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-251

Libertarianism

Average Joe SCOTUS: Republic of Hungary v. Simon

Leave a comment

Bringing up some old WW2 shit, Rosalie Simon and company are survivors of the holocaust from Hungary. They sued Hungary in the US for damages incurred during the holocaust. Weirdly, they opted to sue here in the US, and not in Hungary, claiming that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) expropriation exception which reads:

A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case—in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue and that property or any property exchanged for such property is present in the United States in connection with a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or that property or any property exchanged for such property is owned or operated by an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state and that agency or instrumentality is engaged in a commercial activity in the United States;
Basically saying that because these items were taken in violation of international law, they can be sued in our federal court. But the opposition argues that Hungarian courts should be given a crack at hearing this first, and they can’t just sue here in the US out of convenience.
The court enjoined this case with the Germany v. Philipp one, and kicked that shit back to Hungary, arguing this is basically none of our fucking business.
Read about the case here at Oyez
Libertarianism

Average Joe SCOTUS: Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski

Leave a comment

In a case with two names that can’t be pronounced by any reasonable person, we’re going to talk about free speech.

Chike Uzuegbunam, a student at Georgia Gwinnett College (GGC) is a religious dude, and he wanted to talk about his faith and shit with anyone who would listen. GGC has two free speech zones that can be reserved, and they told Chike to do that shit there. The rest of campus, he should keep his trap shut about any of his “God” propaganda.

Chike was like, “Fine you assholes,” and reserved one of those zones as he was asked, and then went on to spread the word of whatever religion it was he wanted to talk about. But Chike, is one dedicated mother fucker, and made up literature for that shit to go with his speeches.

So then the school was like, “Woah, we didn’t say you could pass out literature, man. WTF are you doing?”

So now Chike was like, “This is some bullshit” and sued them for violating his first amendment rights, and decided to seek damages.

The school, knowing they done fucked up, changed their rules accordingly, and then said, “See look at us, we fixed it. So now this case is moot, and we don’t owe him anything, right?”

But Chike was like, “Fuck you man, the damage was done. I appreciate you fixing it after the fact, but you can’t run over me with your car, put me in the hospital, and then say you don’t owe me for my hospital bills because you sell the car and can’t run over me anymore.”

So now here we are at SCOTUS to determine if mooting the case absolves GGC from owing Chike some scratch.

Chike’s side basically argues that a case is only moot if the courts have no action left to help them due to the changes made by the other party. While the school changed their policy, they didn’t do anything to compensate Chike as a result.

The defense of course didn’t suffer any injury, and therefore there isn’t any damages incurred.

Basically, the school was hoping SCOTUS would see they changed their rules, moot the case, and effectively sweep it under the rug, as opposed to dropping some legal hammer on them for shitting all over Chike’s 1st amendment rights. In order to make the case not moot, Chike’s team included like a fucking dollar’s worth of damages, so that even if the case is considered mooted because the school changed their rules, there’ still the matter of that fucking dollar to decide.

In an 8:1 decision, where only John Roberts dissented, SCOTUS ruled in favor of Uzuegbunam, saying that the nominal damages rendered the case not moot, and they could proceed, and the courts could ultimately decide the case for Uzuegbunam. That even nominal damages requested by the petitioner are worth deciding.

John Roberts in his lone dissent, was like, “You eight stupid assholes basically just ensured that every god damn case we’ll hear, from now to kingdom fucking come, will have a fucking dollar of damages added to it. Great job, dumbasses. We’ll never be able to moot a case and go home early every again. Serious, fuck you.

Read about the case here:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-968

and here:

Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski
Libertarianism

Average Joe SCOTUS: Opati v. Republic of Sudan

Leave a comment

Back in 1998, Al Qaeda detonated some truck bombs in Kenya and Tanzania, near the US embassies there. It became pretty clear that Al Qaeda was behind it, and that Sudan had given them some training and safe harbor for their part in these bombings.

So families of the victims decided to sue the fuck out of Sudan for wrongful death. Sudan didn’t give a fuck, and didn’t even bother to show up to court to defend themselves.

As is typical in a civil court proceeding, if you don’t show up to defend yourself, you’re going to lose your judgement. And they did.

So then, when awards were handed down, they decided to appeal. Hard to appeal when you didn’t bother to defend yourself, but fuck it. They’re going for it.

Most countries have sovereign immunity in a U.S. court, which basically means they’re not bound to any U.S. law, and therefore can’t typically be sued in a U.S. court. But, under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), a country determined to be involved in terrorism loses such sovereign immunity, and can be subject to a lawsuit. It’s not the easiest thing to enforce, but if these nations happen to have money parked in the United States, we’ll seize that shit.

In 2008, Congress amended the law to allow for punitive damages in such a suit. So the Sudanese government is challenging on the grounds that this shit occurred ten years before the punitive damages amendment to the law, and therefore, the action is not open for punitive damages.

In an 8-0 unanimous decision (Kavanaugh couldn’t be bothered, and decided to sit this one out), SCOTUS sided with Opati. They determined that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) is retroactive, and applies to things that happened prior to it being written, such as these bombings.

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.