Average Joe SCOTUS – Roe v. Wade [Classic]

We all know that Roe v. Wade made abortion legal across the United States, but the this shit is WAY more nuanced and complicated than most know. So let’s really dig into this bitch, because it’s interesting AF.

First, Jane Roe was a fictional name used to represent an anonymous woman. She chose to remain anonymous at the time, but was later identified as Norma McCorvey. She had gotten pregnant with her third child, and wanted an abortion. The first two she had given up for adoption, but this time, she didn’t want to go through all of that.

But there was a Texas law that said outside of rape and incest, unless your doctor orders an abortion to save your life, your doctor can’t perform a fucking abortion on you.

So Jane lied and said she had been raped. But when there was no police report to corroborate the rape, they suspected she was full of shit, and denied her an abortion, leaving her with no way in Texas to get a legal abortion.

Jane Roe wasn’t the only appellant, though. There was also an anonymous couple that had gotten pregnant, and a doctor Hallford who was under indictment for performing an abortion (Presumably not the lead singer for Judas Priest, Rob Halford, although that’d be pretty fucking awesome).

They sought justice in a Texas district court citing first amendment violations (presumably arguing it was a law based on religion). But she also argued Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Texas district court gave her a victory on 9th amendment grounds, that just because the right to an abortion isn’t enumerated in the Constitution, doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a right to  do it. But also, it effectively argues a person has a right to privacy. They cited the 14th amendment as well, which guarantees rights to “all citizens born.” So if you aren’t born yet, you’ve got no rights, little fella.

But Texas only gave a declaratory relief (they clarified the law), not injuctive relief, which would have effectively intervened on Roe’s behalf so she could get her abortion.

Texas decided that despite this decision, it was going to continue prosecuting doctors for performing illegal abortions.

By the time it made it to SCOTUS, the appellant focused on the 9th amendment and 14th amendment arguments, since that’s how they won in Texas, when pleading their case to SCOTUS.

Also, the appellants argued that based on some of the situations that were unique to that time, made Roe a victim. She noted that some jobs make the woman quit, some schools make the woman drop out, and the woman can’t get unemployment or welfar if she were pregnant. She stated,

It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life.

And we feel that, because of the impact on the woman, this certainly and as far as there are any rights which are fundamental is a matter which is of such fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy.

Here’s where this shit starts to get interesting. The Texas law only forbade a doctor from doing the abortion. And it held a significantly lower penalty than murder, which appellant’s argued that showed they weren’t considering it murder. A woman could perform her own abortion, which is dangerous as hell, and there was no law against that shit at all. As a matter of fact, in the law, the pregnant female was considered the victim, and the doctor was the criminal.

Part of the blow dealt to Texas was that from the doctor’s perspective, the law was too vague or subjective. Meaning that a doctor could run afoul of the law, and not even know.

Imagine if the doctor performed the abortion because they said the mother’s life was in danger. But then another doctor comes in after the fact and argues that the mother wasn’t in danger, the doctor performing the abortion was a shit doctor, and thus it’s an illegal abortion. Who the hell wants to sort that shit out? And what doctor will ever perform an abortion, when they know they could be thrown in jail for it later?

So this shady motherfucker on the side of Wade, tried to argue the case moot, because it had been 21 months, and Roe had long since given birth and put the baby up for adoption. Basically, this dipshit was setting up a system where a woman could never get injuctive relief, because it would take too long to get it, and actually be able to perform the abortion. This case tool 21 months, but obviously, the abortion needs to happen within a few months. So the court called him on this, and the exchange was awkward at best.

Justice Byron R. White

How do you suggest, if you’re right, what procedure would you suggest for any pregnant female in the State of Texas ever to get any judicial consideration of this constitutional claim?

Jay Floyd – Wade advocate

Your Honor, let me answer your question with a statement, if I may. I do not believe it can be done. There are situations in which, of course as the Court knows, no remedy is provided.

Now I think she makes her choice prior to the time she becomes pregnant. That is the time of the choice. It’s like, more or less, the first three or four years of our life we don’t remember anything.

But, once a child is born, a woman no longer has a choice, and I think pregnancy may terminate that choice. That’s when

Justice Byron R. White

Maybe she makes her choice when she decides to live in Texas.

As arguments proceeded, the question was asked of the state by SCOTUS, what’s your interest here? To preserve the life of the fetus? So Wade’s attorney was all like, I don’t fucking know, sounds about right.

You’ll think I’m joking there, but he genuinely fucking said when asked what the state’s interest was,

“They recognized the humanness of the embryo, or the fetus, and they said, we have an interest in protecting fetal life.

Whether or not that was the original intent of the statute, I have no idea.”

Clearly, this motherfucker was prepared.

So then the justice was like, well then how the fuck is the woman the victim? Shouldn’t the woman and the doctor be the criminals, and the fetus be the victim?

It became clear that no compelling argument had been made, nor precedent set, to constitute a fetus being a life with equal protection under the law. As a matter of fact, this motherfucker when asked about not making the fetus the victim said,

That is correct, Your Honor. And the matter has been brought to my attention. Why not punish for murder, since you are destroying what you – or what has been said to be a human being?

I do not know, except that I will say this. As medical science progresses, maybe the law will progress along with it. Maybe at one time it could be possible, I suppose, statutes could be passed. Whether or not that would be constitutional or not, I don’t know.

I’ve eaten a bowl of alphabet soup and shit better arguments than that. No wonder that mother fucker lost. Seriously!

He was so bad, that when the case was re-argued at the suggestion of justice Harry Blackmun nearly a year later (due to the fact the court was two justices short from retirements prior to the case, and those seats having not yet been filled), Texas replaced his dumb ass as their advocate.

Anyway, back to Captain Anonymous, Jane Roe. Effectively, if the court accepted that the state’s interest was protecting a life other than the mother’s life, then the court was put into a quagmire, where they’re forced to choose the rights of one life over another.

So eventually SCOTUS decided 7-2 in favor of Roe. Based on the idea that they’re choosing one life over the other, they divide the pregnancy up into three trimesters, which is where the whole “trimester” term came to be.

They gave the mother sole discretion, with her doctor, to terminate in the first trimester (this is where the trimester concept started). They gave deference to the mother in the second trimester to terminate if her life was at risk, but the state could regulate outside of that. Then they gave deference to the state’s ability to protect the fetus in the third trimester, basically arguing, the state could legislate it to say, you’ve come this fucking far, just have the baby and put it up for adoption if you don’t want it. But if the state didn’t pass such a law, go ahead and have the abortion.

Justices Rehnquist and White dissented.

Read about the case, and hear both oral arguments here

Advertisements

Average Joe SCOTUS – United States v. Haymond

So this perverted motherfucker Haymond was a serial child porn user. His disgusting dumb ass got busted, was convicted, and was sentenced to 38 months in prison plus 10 years of supervised release. These two separate sentences will be important, so pay attention.

Haymond was still a pervert after he served hard time, and two years into his supervised release, this dumb motherfucker got busted again with new child porn. Like seriously, fuck this guy.

So the judge imposed a five year minimum sentence on Haymond as a result of his infraction during supervised release, based on minimums set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k).

Haymond sued and said, “This is some bullshit. The 5th amendment gives me due process, and the 6th amendment guarantees me a jury trial. But this piece of shit judge just shoved five years up my ass without a trial or a jury.”

Prosecutors were like, “Listen. First. You’re a fucking pervert and you need to be off the streets. Clearly, you’re a sick fuck that needs to go away. Second, your sentences originally were a total of 13 years and two months. You’ve only served the 38 months and 2 years of supervised, so the sentence is basically turning the balance of your supervised release to supervised behind bars, motherfucker. Third, fuck you.”

The whole point of a trial by jury, is because judges back in the day, were appointed by the king, and often corrupt AF. They couldn’t be trusted then. And even now, they’re still appointed and not always to be trusted. So juries are kinda important.

So now SCOTUS has to decide if Haymond should have been tried again for these new offenses before throwing his dumb ass back in jail, or if the judge was within the Constitutional framework sentencing him within his original sentence. Specifically, they were asked if 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k), which was the law that provided for a minimum of five years if he got busted during supervised release, violated his 5th and 6th amendment rights.

This was a tough one, split 5:4. These robed motherfuckers simply couldn’t agree here. Gorsuch sided with the left justices on this one, pretty pissed off that Congress, in passing such a law, wanted to essentially keep “we the people” out of the decision making process and putting these decisions solely in the hands of a judge. This bullshit law was deemed a violation of 5A and 6A. The other conservatives again, showing they’re not the constitutional freedom lovers you think they are dissented, agreeing with the idea that it was within the original sentence, and thus didn’t add any “time” to the defendant, it just added time in jail vs. supervised release.

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

 

 

Average Joe SCOTUS – Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck

OK, we all know New York would regulate the size of your bowel movements if they could, right?

These legislators in the United Socialist State of New York decided that if you’re going to operate a cable TV company in New York, and you have more than 36 channels (because they’re the kind to write arbitrary bullshit rules like that), you have to at least dedicate one channel to a public access channel that is on a “first-come, first-served” basis.

Time Warner, being a big ass cable company, were granted permission to operate there if they had four public access stations available. New York assigned a gestapo group to oversee it—Manhattan Community Access Corp. (MCAC).

Along come these beatnik assholes Halleck and Melendez and their shitty poetry and stupid socialist bullshit home video they called, “The 1% visit El Barrio.” I haven’t heard their poetry, or watched their dumb video. It’s just that all poetry is shitty, and I’d rather watch my cat lick his balls. Get a fucking job.

Because their poetry was especially shitty, these gestapo public access stations police at MCAC told them to get the fuck out and don’t come back.

Halleck and Menendez said, “First amendment, motherfuckers! I have a right to speak without you Nazi government assholes preventing me from doing so.”

But MCAC was like, “We’re a private group, not government. And frankly, you can speak to your heart’s content, just not on our fucking channel, asshole. Now get lost.”

So SCOTUS was asked to decided if MCAC was a government entity since it existed at the behest of government, even though it was a private entity. And did they violate the beatnik’s 1A rights?

The conservative justice don’t give a fuck about these beatnik’s garbage poetry and videos, and ruled for MCAC. Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan being the hippies they are dissented—poetry is life!. They were like, “you right wing assholes don’t realize that when New York set this shit up to be public access, they made it an electronic public forum. Limiting these beatnik’s ability to use this public forum is a clear violation of 1A, and you guys can eat a bag of dicks.”

So then the right-wing justices were like, “Too bad we have the majority, assholes.” 5:4 decision for MCAC.

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

Average Joe SCOTUS – Bowman v. Monsanto [Classic]

Love ’em or hate ’em, Monsanto is a big fucking company. And they’re big, because they’ve made a product that farmers LOVE!

Here’s some sciency bullshit for your reading pleasure. We all know pesticides can be harmful to consumers, so Monsanto developed a seed that was resistant to their weed killer glyphosate, Glyphosate kills vegetation dead, largely by preventing plants from photosynthesizing or some shit like that, while being pretty much harmless to animals, such as humans, in small doses.

Biology lesson: Everything is a poison, what matters is the dose. So if people tell you a chemical is harmful, and they don’t tell you at what  dose it’s harmful, they’re talking shit. Like seriously, ignore it. The dose matters just as much when discussing this shit. People have literally died drinking too much water (overdose of H2O), and the most powerful poison known to man (botulinum) people inject right into their fucking face for vanity reasons because it’s such a low dose, it’s safe.

Back to the sciency bullshit. If you create a seed that resists glyphosate, you can use just glyphosate as your pesticide, and not the myriad of other pesticides you’d normally use to kill all the different weeds, yet your crop still grows. The overall list of potentially harmful chemicals on your crop is reduced, and thus is presumably safer to eat.

Sounds complicated, right? That’s because it is. Science is hard as fuck! Monsanto spend gazillions developing this shit, and they want to get paid for their investment, otherwise, why the hell would they do it?

So Monsanto patented their gene-edited seeds, and sell them to people with the agreement that they will buy new seeds from Monsanto every year, and won’t use seeds from the offspring of the previous year’s plants.

The gene edits are effectively clones, and all life mutates in nature (natural selection depends on this) as it procreates, so in order for it to work its best, you want a new crop of the same clones each year. Not 2nd generation mutated bullshit seeds.

Along comes this cheapskate motherfucker Bowman who signed a contract with Monsanto, and complied with their regs for a while. One thing Monsanto allows for in their regs, is selling second gen seeds to a grain elevator, which are then usually used to feed livestock and shit, not to replant for next year’s crop.

But Bowman did exactly that. He used seeds from a grain elevator, and planted that shit, in direct violation of his contract. This motherfucker planted them, used glyphosate to fertilize them, then whatever still grew, he knew it was the good shit and he could keep using it. Sneaky AF!

It’s basically like buying a Metallica album, then throwing it up on Napster so other people can get it free.  He was duplicating their patented shit and making money off of it without giving Monsanto their cut, and violating his contract with them. He know what he was doing.

So Monsanto sued and said, “Listen, we have a fucking contract. If you don’t want to use our shit, don’t use it. But if you do, you fucking pay us for it like you agreed to, you cheap bastard. You don’t go around using copies and act like it’s all good and shit.”

Bowman was like, “Man, I didn’t copy shit. Nature copied it. I just took advantage of what nature does, man!”

So SCOTUS was called, and asked to weigh in. SCOTUS wasn’t hearing Bowman’s bullshit. They unanimously told Bowman to go pound sand up his ass. They were so moved by Bowman’s bullshit, that they did the rare reading aloud of their decision.

Hear both oral arguments and the rare oral reading of the opinion, as well as read about the case here.

Average Joe SCOTUS – Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology LLC.

These people at Tempnology made some clothing and shit meant for people doing physical activities, that helped keep the wearer cooler. Not cooler like Chuck Norris, but cooler like the other side of the pillow.

Mission Product agreed to sell their product, so they had rights to the sell the product, deploy the technology in their own products, and to use Tempnology’s trademarks, logos, and shit.

Tempnology however sucked at business, and ran up operating costs to the point where they had to file bankruptcy. As a result, they sought to rescind their contract with Mission because of the financial strain that contract put on them. Basically, they wanted more money than the contract entitled them to.

Mission was like, “WTF, man? We have a deal, bitch!”

Tempnology was like, “Bankruptcy, motherfucker. Have you heard of it? Fuck you, and your contract too!”

Mission was then like, “Your inability to run your god damn company doesn’t mean that we should lose money, not being able to exploit the contract we have with you. You gave your word, douchebag!”

I assume Mission were using Tempnology’s technology in their own products where Tempnology wasn’t making much money off of it, because they weren’t making it themselves. But I’m guessing, so don’t quote me on that shit.

We all know bankruptcy puts a hold on debtors, but it also allows for the potential rejection of what the case referred to as executory contracts, which are basically contracts still in effect and not completed (or fully executed).

SCOTUS didn’t feel sorry for Tempnology at all, though. They were luck, “Screw your bankruptcy. Mission can keep exploiting your technology because you all had an agreement. You don’t get to reject that agreement entirely because you hired a shitty accountant or something.”

Judgement for Mission Holding 8:1. Gorsuch dissented, not even seeing how Mission was being unfairly damaged here. Maybe the other eight can explain it to him.

Read about the case or hear oral arguments here.

Average Joe SCOTUS – Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas

We all know Tennessee are a bunch of drinking motherfuckers, right? They loves them some alcohol.

Well, Tennessee apparently don’t care for outsiders, though. So they drafted a law that said you have to have been a resident of Tennessee for two years in order to get a liquor license, and then you had to be there for ten years to renew one.

Well, there were a couple people who failed to meet this requirement, but they lived in Tennessee and wanted to help Tennesseeans in their area get their fucking drink on. So they recruited the help of the Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association, claiming that they were being unfairly discriminated against based on the Dormant Commerce Clause which basically says you can’t commercially discriminate against another state in your own state.

But Tennessee, being enterprising statists, noted that the 21st amendment which repealed prohibition says that you can’t transport liquor across state lines in violation of that state’s laws. So Tennessee figured that meant they could make up whatever jack-ass backwoods bullshit law they wanted, and the 21st amendment protected them.

So now here we are in court, and SCOTUS has to decide if 21 lets them pass whatever law they want, even if it seems inconsistent with the Dormant Commerce Clause, and is discriminating AF against another state.

SCOTUS said, “Nice try Tennessee, but get the fuck outta here with this bullshit.” 7:2 in favor of the Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association. Gorsuch and Thomas dissented, presumably because Tennessee has pictures of them with prostitutes or something, I don’t know. They’re supposed to be limited government guys, and here they are voting for government over the people. *Sad face*

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

Average Joe SCOTUS – Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service

Return Mail Inc (RMI) patented some sweet ass genius technology to help deal with mail that has an unreadable or missing address on it. They patented their tech like any good company would do.

Knowing that their tech was basically meant for one client, the US Postal Service (USPS), they went to sell USPS a license to use their patented software.

USPS being a bunch of mafioso-type big government bullshit artists were like, “Oh, we’ll use your patent alright, RMI. But we ain’t paying you jack shit for it. We’re just using it because we’re the federal government, and we do whatever the fuck we want!”

Knowing they might end up in court, the USPS took their mafioso bit one step further, and tried to get the Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board to declare RMI’s product unpatentable. If this isn’t blatant fucking theft, I don’t know what is.

RMI, realizing this was the bullshitiest bullshit that had ever been bullshitted, countersued saying this violated provisions in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which was designed to improve the patent process in general by changing the “first to invent” rule, to “first to file.” But within the act, it provides for “persons” to dispute patents.

So RMI was basically asking SCOTUS to say, “Look, the USPS isn’t a person, it’s a fucking mafioso oppressor and bullshit artist. And therefore, they can’t challenge our patent.”

SCOTUS listened, and decided to agree with RMI, that the USPS can’t be called a person by any reasonable measure, and for once, private industry fought the law, and private industry won.

6:3 judgement for Return Mail Inc. Breyer, Ginsberg, and Kagan dissented citing instances where the government was referred to as a person elsewhere.

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

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

%d bloggers like this: