Tag Archives: Average Joe SCOTUS

Average Joe SCOTUS: Flowers v. Mississippi

Back in 1996, there was an armed robbery at the Tardy Furniture Store, and four people were killed. The petitioner in this case, and all around asshole Flowers was eventually tried in Mississippi and convicted for the robbery/homicide of one of the people, and sentences to death. Seriously, fuck that guy.

The court had allowed evidence the Mississippi Supreme Court (SCOM) felt was inadmissible related to the murder of the other three people, and dismissed the case.

So Mississippi tried him for the murder of a second victim, and did the same dumb shit, and the SCOM again dismissed on the same grounds, but those persistent prosecutors in Mississippi weren’t about to let this douchebag get off for murder, and went after him again a third time. They prosecuted him for the murder of all four, again found him guilty a third time, and again sentenced this mortherfucker to death.

We all know Mississippi has some race problems, and even if this motherfucker was guilty, these inept motherfuckers could fuck up a wet dream. The assholes in Mississippi went out of their way to exclude black jurors, since Flowers was black, and they thought black jurors might acquit, over recent racial tensions.

There were mistrials multiple times, and it wasn’t until the sixth trial this motherfucker AGAIN was convicted and sentenced to death. But of course you know, that isn’t the end of this shit.

Flowers was like, “these racist motherfuckers in Mississippi kept striking my brothers and sisters from the jury, denying me the right to a fair trial, and equal protection under the law. 6th and 14th amendments, y’all!”

So Flowers asked SCOM to step in, but they upheld the conviction. But then SCOTUS was like, “Wait a fucking minute. You’re joking, right SCOM? Look again, assholes. We already ruled on this shit in Batson v Kentucky. Maybe you’ve heard of it? You can’t just strike jurors because they’re fucking black.”

But SCOM was like, “Fuck you SCOTUS, this is a good conviction. The state fucking told you we had other reasons for striking those black jurors. This was a small ass town, and all those people knew either the defendant or the victims.”

While the lone black SCOTUS justice was one of two who dissented, (along with Gorsuch), and felt the non-race-based reasons were reasonable and potentially a legit reason for the state striking those jurors, the other seven justices sided with Flowers in ruling this was some racist bullshit. Judgement for Flowers.

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

Advertisements

Average Joe SCOTUS: Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt

We all remember that there were some warfare activities in Iraq, right? So because of all that, there were munitions scattered about the place everywhere, and that shit needed cleaned up.

So The Parsons Corporation were given a $60M government contract to find those munitions, and discard of them properly, back in 2006.

In the contract, Parsons had to provide adequate security for their employees, and they subcontracted that duty to a company called ArmorGroup, despite the fact that Cochise Consultancy (the petitioner here) had submitted a competitive bid.

As it turns out, this piece of shit for the Army Corps of Engineers named Wayne Shaw, had taken bribes, forged documents, threatened people, and shit like that to ensure Cochise got the bid over ArmorGroup, and eventually, his shady ass got the subcontract shifted to Cochise.

Once Cochise started, they were getting $1M more a month than ArmorGroup would have. Eventually, that shady dickhead Shaw got rotated away from Iraq, and Parsons put the contract out for bid again, eventually giving the bid back to ArmorGroup.

A Parson’s employee, Billy Joe Hunt, was involved in the corrupt scheme between Cochise and Parsons, and eventually in 2010, the FBI came knocking on his door, and he was quick to fess up, landing his ass in federal prison for ten months.

In order to encourage whistle blowers to blow some fucking whistles, the government allows for something called qui tam lawsuits under the False Claim Acts. It’s basically where a private person can sue a private party for defrauding the government, and then get 30% of the reward for doing it. As you can imagine, it encourages private people to report these scumbags, when they can get a reward for doing it.

So Hunt decided to go after Cochise and Parsons in 2013 to try to make some money. He was in federal prison for ten months, and was probably broke AF. So he saw an opportunity, and went for it.

But, unfortunately for Hunt, it was deemed past the statute of limitations by the time the FBI came after him, and he served his time. It had been seven years since the violations occurred, and of course Hunt knew about it all along.

The statute of limitations required it had to either be within six years of the violation, or three years after a government official knew about it, and the seven years exceeded both.

So a district court dismissed Hunt’s claim, but then a US Court of appeals disagreed, reversed, and sent it back, saying that Hunt was a Parson’s employee, and not a government official, therefore, the three year statute hadn’t been violated yet. The government had only recently found out, and they didn’t bother to intervene.

So as usual, two courts don’t agree, and SCOTUS here we come. Cochise of course didn’t like the Appeals Court ruling, so they sued to try to enforce the Statute of Limitations exclusion given by the lower court.

So SCOTUS were asked to resolve the idea that Hunt was not to be considered an acceptable person to “know about it” and start the clock on the three year statute of limitations.

SCOTUS told Cochise to go pound sand up their ass. Unanimous decision for Hunt. He wasn’t a government official, and acted within three years of a government official knowing about the fraud. Now fuck off and pay him you dirty fucks.

Hear oral arguments or read about the case here.

 

 

Average Joe SCOTUS – Smith v Berryhill

Back in 1987, this dude Ricky Lee Smith was all kinds of fucked up. So he filed for, and received disability insurance. Then 2004 rolled up, and SSI was like, enough’s enough, man. Get a J-O-B.

So Smith was like, “Fine, fuck you.”

Then, eight years later, he crawls his ass back to the SSI office, and is like, “Seriously, I’m fucked up. I need help.” But SSI wasn’t having it, and told him to fuck off. Not once, but twice.

So Smith applied for a hearing with an administrative law judge (ALJ) on March 26, 2014, and the ALJ was like, “You can fuck right the hell off. We agree with the SSI peeps. Get a job. You can work, so work.”

So now, a month later, he files for an appeal by mail (or so he says), and then by fax on October 1st. The claims rep was like, “We never got your shit back in April, but we have it now. So we’ll file it.

But then the appeals council was all like, “Why the fuck did you wait so long? Claim denied, bitch.” Smith was like, “Fuck you, I sent it a month later by snail mail. This October shit was just a follow up.”

But the Council was like, “Prove it, dude. You’re talking shit.”

So then Smith went to the district court, the Appeals Council’s boss, and was like, “Hey man. Those assholes over at the Appeals council are trying to fuck me like I’m in the McDonald’s drive thru. Can you help me out? I’d like some judicial review.”

But then the Appeals Council was like, “sure we denied it, but it wasn’t final or anything yet. No reason to bring the district court into all this man. It’s all good. They’ve got no reason to get involved.”

The district court was like, “Smith, you seem like a lazy piece of shit to us, and we don’t want to hear your shit today. So we agree with the Appeals Council. Go back over there and leave us alone.”

So now Smith, being both too lazy to work, but clearly motivated enough to waste the taxpayer’s money went to SCOTUS and was like, “Can you help me out here? Can you make the district court realize that when the Appeals Council told me I was too late, then I had every reason to go to the District Court and get them to sort those motherfuckers out?”

All nine SCOTUS justices sided with Smith. They agreed that the Appeals Council telling him to fuck off for being late, was a final decision on their part, and the now places his fight in the district court to address it through judicial review.

Hear oral arguments and read about the case here.

Average Joe SCOTUS – The American Legion v. American Humanist Association

Back in 1918, this park made a war memorial with a big-ass cross in it. At the time, it was a private park. In 1961 the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission took over that land and everything on it.

This cross racked up big maintenance costs over time, and the Maryland Commission was paying to maintain it. Some non-Christians at the American Humanist Association (I’m atheist, but they sound like the boringest borings that ever bored, don’t they?) were like, “Separation of Church and state, man! This is bullshit.”

So then the American Legion was like, “Listen you atheist assholes. The cross has been used to honor dead people for years. It is often a Christian symbol, sure. But sometimes, it’s secular. So give us a fucking break. Have you ever seen the World War 1 memorial? Crosses are everywhere!”

But American Humanist wasn’t having that bullshit and took them to court. They cited the old Lemon v Kurtzman decision, which sided with atheists that government couldn’t give money to non-secular schools. They were like, “It’s the same god damn thing!”

So as usual, lower courts couldn’t agree, and these peeps found their asses in the sights of SCOTUS.

SCOTUS wasn’t hearing that shit, though. They somehow argued that the cross can indeed have a secular meaning as the American Legion and sided with them accordingly, 7 to 2. Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented. Ginsburg was like, the cross “is the foremost symbol of the Christian faith…” I’m pretty sure she said, “are you fucking nuts?” But they bleeped it out.

Here’s the deal, this is not government establishing religion, or prohibiting free expression thereof, which is what the constitution actually says, not that there should be a separation of church and state. We’re still arguing over this nonsense because SCOTUS seems to care more about precedent than the constitution’s verbiage. As Scalia once said, “that document is dead.” Meaning it should be interpreted as that shit is written, not what you think they meant. If congress doesn’t like it, amend it.

Again, I’m atheist, but if it isn’t a law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof, then it doesn’t violate 1A as it’s written. So amend it, or move on.

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

Average Joe SCOTUS – Mont v. United States

So this dude Mont was peddling drugs, and got busted in 2005. He was sentenced in federal court (federal is relevant here) for ten years, plus another five years supervised release.

So this dumb motherfucker gets busted doing dumb shit near the end of his supervised release, but they were state crimes. He knew he was fucked, and pleaded guilty.

Here’s where this shit gets kinda funny. So he pleaded guilty in state court about 6 months before his supervised release from the federal term, but the state being the state, took forever to sentence this motherfucker. Precisely 15 days after his supervised release had ended.

So his probation officer for the federal crime went all narc and shit, and told on this motherfucker to the federal circuit court. And they were all like, “Mont, you dumb motherfucker. You’re going to jail for 42 months on top of the time you’ll serve for your state convictions. How dare you violate during your supervised release!”

So then Mont’s attorney, trying to be the clever ambulance chaser that he was, decided to play the angles. So he was like, “Look feds, he didn’t get sentenced until after his federal release was over. So he served his time and you were done with him before this new crime. So you have no jurisdiction here.” This despite the fact he plead guilty and committed the crime well before his supervised release.

So it lands at the lap of SCOTUS, who were clearly unsympathetic to Mont. Because they were like, “Hey, the clock paused on Mont’s supervised release when his dumb ass was sent to pretrial detention, and this moves his date back past the state conviction date, giving the feds jurisdiction. So fuck you, off to jail you go, you little shit.”

5:4 Decision for United States, in a pretty non-partisan decision. Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch were the dissenters, saying that pretrial detention doesn’t remove the presumption of innocence. It’s there to make sure that dumb fuck shows up for trial, not punish him. As such, it shouldn’t pause shit. But, they’re in the minority, so they are in the loser’s lounge with Mont.

Hear oral arguments and read about the case here.

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

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.