Category Archives: SCOTUS For The Average Joe

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.

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: Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies

Leave a comment

So these Click-to-Call assholes sued these Thryv assholes for a patent infringement. Any company that spells a normal word in a weird way (Thryv instead of Thrive) deserves to lose just because they’re probably annoying fucks who think they’re edgy, IMO. But I digress.

Anyway, there’s this procedure within patent law called Inter Parties Review (IPR). Basically, where someone with a complaint about the patent, can ask the patent office (PTO) to review that shit.

However, there’s a rule within this that says, if you’ve been sued as infringing the patent, you can’t ask for an IPR more than a year after you’ve been sued. If you’ve never been sued for infringement however, you can ask for IPR to your heart’s content.

Well, despite the fact that C2C sued Thrive 12 years earlier, the 1 year time-bar was ruled as not relevant, because the case was dropped. So they basically argued that since the case was dropped, the one year time limit didn’t apply—it’s as if the suit never even happened.

But now that Thryv is asking for an IPR, C2C is like, “Woah, you assholes. It’s 12 years since we sued you mother fuckers, way longer than a fucking year. Take your IPR request and shove it squarely up your ass sideways.”

So now SCOTUS has to decide if a suit that is dropped happened or not basically. They’re also looking into whether the judicial branch even has the right to opine on execute decisions. Meaning that the Patent Office is directed by the Executive branch, and they get to make their own rules. So can a judge investigating an IPR ruling even have the authority to do that. Separation of powers and all.

In a 7-2 decision, SCOTUS was more impressed with Thryv’s argument. That it is a separation of powers thing, and that SCOTUS can’t overrule the president’s procedures for the patent office.

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

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Maine Community Health Options v. United States

Leave a comment

So, we all remember this monstrosity, the Affordable Care Act, also known colloquially as Obamacare, right?

Well, one of the piece of shit parts of this piece of shit law, was a Risk Corridor provision they added to insure the previously uninsurable. Listen to this bullshit. Are you ready?

They told insurance companies to insure these people, and they would reimburse them if they incurred losses. And they would get the money to reimburse them from companies who were making higher profits and not incurring such losses.

This was a scheme brought about because the government wanted all people insured, but the insurance companies rightly argued that these people who were previously deemed uninsurable have no data for us insuring them previously, for us to figure out a fair rate that covers them.

So the government basically told them, “do your best” on figuring out a rate, and if you lose money, we’ll reimburse you.

The plan was to give them three years to figure out a proper rate during this period, then the risk corridors would go away.

Here’s the rub. These idiots literally thought somehow that insurance companies would make as many profits to cover the losses from insuring people with pre-existing conditions, and other life-long medical needs. Because apparently, not one of these 538 assholes ever took a fucking math class.

Anyway, the insurance companies did what they were told, but then as usual, Congress was full of shit, and denied paying such claims, because “Surprise!” they didn’t recoup enough profits from other insurance companies to cover all these crazy high claims.

So now Maine Community Health Options (MCHO) is suing the Fed for what they’re owed, or the repeal of this stupid fucking law. May a god I don’t believe in be with them.

SCOTUS’ job is determine if the law passes constitutional muster since the government isn’t fulfilling their obligation, but yet expect these insurance companies to comply nonetheless, basically putting them in an untenable position.

At one point, Justice Roberts seemed to clearly grasp the idea that the government’s argument was a load of shit.

John G. Roberts, Jr.

I vaguely recall the government arguing on several occasions that unenacted bills are entitled to some weight in the interpretation process, but you don’t question that these insurance companies would not have participated in the risk corridor program but for the government’s promise to pay?

Edwin S. Kneedler

I — I don’t — well, it’s not about participating in the risk corridor program.

The question is they participated in the — in the marketplaces that were set up, the exchanges, and they had a number of business incentives.

This was a vast new market for customers, many of whom, 90 percent of whom would get tax subsidies.

John G. Roberts, Jr.

— customers who otherwise were largely uninsurable.

Edwin S. Kneedler

Yes.

But they — but it was a mark —

John G. Roberts, Jr.

Well, that’s no great business opportunity for them.

Edwin S. Kneedler

Oh — oh, no, it — it is, because Congress provided tax credits to subsidize the — the — the persons who — who purchased insurance on the exchanges.

John G. Roberts, Jr.

No, it’s a good business opportunity for them because the government promised to pay.

If you’re wondering what the state’s argument in all this is, as near as I can tell, they’re saying that the duty to pay was contingent on a “subject to appropriations” clause. Meaning that in the law, it basically argues they’ll pay if any future congress of the time agrees to appropriate the funds.

So get this straight.

Government MANDATED private insurance companies do something on a promise to pay them later. But then congress said, “well, we’ll pay if we agree to, anyway.”

What the fuck is that?

Even Elena Kagan, who is often deemed a more left-leaning justice seemed to think it was ridiculous.

Elena Kagan

Mr. Kneedler—are insurers obligated to pay in if they have excess profits?

Edwin S. Kneedler

Yes, it is a user fee.

Elena Kagan

So this is one where the “shall pay in” is obligatory but the “shall pay out” on the part of the government is not obligatory?

Edwin S. Kneedler

The  pay in is not subject to an appropriations question.

It is an obligation.

And that part of the arrangement, the reciprocity in the program still exists, the payments in and payments out, which is how I think most —

Elena Kagan

I mean, you pay in, that’s obligatory.

We commit ourselves to paying out.

It turns out if we feel like it. What — what kind of — what kind of a statute is that?

In an 8-1 decision, SCOTUS agreed with Maine Community Health Options. The government has to pay these insurance carriers the money they fucking owe them. And by government, it means you and I, the taxpayer, in case you weren’t aware.

Alito, the only dissenter argued that the majority’s opinion “infers a private right of action”, but that wasn’t in the law created by congress. I believe he may be on crack.

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Barton v. Barr

Leave a comment
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)
(a)Cancellation of removal for certain permanent residents. The Attorney General may cancel removal in the case of an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States if the alien—

(1)

has been an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than 5 years,

(2)

has resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status, and

(3)

has not been convicted of any aggravated felony.

(d)Special rules relating to continuous residence or physical presence

(1)Termination of continuous period

For purposes of this section, any period of continuous residence or continuous physical presence in the United States shall be deemed to end (A) except in the case of an alien who applies for cancellation of removal under subsection (b)(2), when the alien is served a notice to appear under section 1229(a) of this title, or (B) when the alien has committed an offense referred to in section 1182(a)(2) of this title that renders the alien inadmissible to the United States under section 1182(a)(2) of this title or removable from the United States under section 1227(a)(2) or 1227(a)(4) of this title, whichever is earliest.

Jamaican Andre Barton came into the U.S. in 1989 under a visa. In 1992, he applied for permanent status, and received it. In 1996, just under being here for seven years, this dumb motherfucker decided to break bad, and got his dumb ass busted for felony assault, destruction of property, and having a firearm during the commission of a felony. Then in 2007/08 he was charged for, but not convicted of, violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act

So now, Homeland security was like, “Fuck you buddy, Ja-makin’ us mad. Pack your shit and get out.”

The law says if you do this shit under seven years of being here, your ass can be kicked to the curb.

Barton however was like, “Motherfucker, I’ve been here like 20 fucking years, so I don’t know where you fucking learned math, but that’s more than seven. I’m staying.”

But Homeland Security was like, “Listen asshole, your crimes were committed in just under seven years of being here, and we were cool as shit with you then. But now you’ve went and been an asshole again. There’s this time-stop rule thing we’re gonna deploy here, that says your fucking clock on being here stopped when you committed your felonies in 1996. So again, pack your shit, and get the fuck out.”

Barton’s counsel, being the clever fuck they are, noted that as said above:

(B) when the alien has committed an offense referred to in section 1182(a)(2) of this title that renders the alien inadmissible to the United States under section 1182(a)(2) of this title or removable from the United States under section 1227(a)(2) or 1227(a)(4) of this title, whichever is earliest.

Counsel noted that it had certain rules for being inadmissable, and other rules for removable. Barton was guilty of “Inadmissable” actions, but not “removable” actions. So Barton’s argument is that he wasn’t applying to be admitted, he was only asking not to have his ass sent back to Jamaica. Therefore, he shouldn’t be subject to removal.

Three lower courts all agreed with immigration, that Barton needs to fuck off and go home. Clearly, congress meant to prevent assholes like Barton from staying here, they just kinda wrote a shitty ambiguous law, because congress sucks balls.

But Barton and his lawyer’s are persistent fucks, and here we are at SCOTUS deciding whether the rule above means that Barton’s clock didn’t stop, and that he’s basically an American now, and doesn’t have to go home, even though he’s a first class asshole.

In a partisan 5-4 split, the right wing of SCOTUS told Barton he could go eat a bag of dicks, but he’d have to do it in Jamaica. Get the fuck out!

Libertarianism, SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org

Leave a comment

The issue at play in this case, is the government edicts doctrine, which basically goes like this. Government cannot copyright their fucking laws. Meaning, they can’t pass a law, and then get pissed that someone reprints it verbatim elsewhere, like other copyrights.

The reason for this, is that we are a government by the people and for the people, and all people should have equal access to the laws that govern them. So if government copyrighted something, and you could only get it from government (potentially with some fee attached), you may not have good access to it, where someone else might have given it to you another way.

So, now to this case. Georgia has this thing they call The Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA). It’s a book of all their laws and shit, with annotations explaining stuff. The annotations aren’t law, but they’re still from Georgia Lawmakers, and then printed and published by a private company.

Public.Resource.Org (PRO), being the nice people they are, try to put out all laws for people to have easy access to them. So they bought the OCGA, scanned that motherfucker, and put it out.

Georgia was like, “Hey motherfucker, you can’t do that. Sure our laws are in there, but there’s a bunch of other shit too. You can’t print that. It’s a copyright violation.”

But PRO was like, “Fuck you, assholes. These are official government documents, both laws, and explanations of the law, and therefore the government edict doctrine mentioned earlier applies. So you can take your cease-and-desist order, and shove it sideways up your whole ass.”

The 11th circuit court of appeals agreed with PRO, and told Georgia to eat a bag of dicks. So Georgia asked for SCOTUS to hook them up, and here we are.

SCOTUS in a non-partisan split decision was unimpressed with the state of Georgia and their shitty argument, siding 5-4 for Public.Resource.org. That the idea the annotations are copyrightable but laws aren’t is fucking stupid, and anyone who interprets it that way are fucking idiots.

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: United States v. Sineneng-Smith

Leave a comment

Shady ass lawyer, Evelyn Sineneng-Smith, was an immigration attorney, who helped mostly Filipino’s who came to the U.S., got jobs, but were here illegally, try to obtain a green card based on their working here honorably.

You see, there was a labor certification process that the U.S. used to use to allow immigrants to stay here if they were productive workers in the country. But that program expired all the way back in 2001.

Sineneng-Smith absolutely knew this shit, but she was like “Fuck it” and kept telling her clients she could help them, citing this process.

Federal law prohibits encouraging people to come here or stay here illegally. So this case hinges on whether she was in violation of said law by bullshitting her clients. Or, if the 1st amendment’s guarantee of free speech allows her to encourage her clients to stay here, even on a bullshit premise.

At one point, Justice Roberts even asked if the law would effectively prosecute a legal immigrant grandma here in the U.S. from encouraging her illegal immigrant daughter to stay here in the U.S. in defiance of immigration law, because she’s been a big help to her.

In a unanimous decision, SCOTUS decided against Sineneng-Smith, but seemed more concerned with the ninth circuit’s ruling for Sineneng-Smith, than they did with the arguments at hand. They cited that the ninth circuit who previously ruled on this case, had abused their discretion in making their ruling. That neither party had argued what the ninth circuit ruled, and therefore, neither party had a right to that ruling.

There’s a “party presentation” rule that basically says, if party A makes one argument, and party B makes another, the court is supposed to rule on which argument is better, and not make up it’s own third argument and rule for that instead.

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