Tag Archives: Average Joe SCOTUS

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Borden v. United States

Leave a comment

All around ne’er-do-well Charles Borden Jr., a felon who has been felonious multiple times, was rolling dirty. Police pulled his dumb ass over, and he had a gun in his car. So they locked that dumb motherfucker up. He plead guilty to possessing the firearm when he knew damn well he shouldn’t have had it.

During sentencing, the government opted to sentence him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), arguing he was a violent felon three times before, so basically, he’s officially a piece of shit, and should get an automatic minimum of 15 years in the pokey, which is what a dumb fuck gets when they’re busted with a gun after they have three violent felonies on their rap sheet.

But Borden was like, “Hey, one of those convictions, I was just reckless. I don’t actually mean to hurt anyone.” His argument being, if I wasn’t trying to hurt someone, it’s not violence, according to the ACCA text which reads,  “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.”

But the district court who heard his case were like, “Dude, the 6th Circuit already confirmed that reckless aggravated assault does count as a violent felony as a matter of precedent. So you can shove your argument squarely up your ass, Borden.” They believe that congress intended to go after people who harm others, intentionally or not.

The 6th circuit, agreeing with themselves agreed.

So now we’re here at SCOTUS to determine if intent has to be present, to make a felony, a violent felony under the ACCA.

In a narrow 5:4 decision, SCOTUS sided with Borden. He didn’t use force, and therefore you can’t call it violent.

Hear oral arguments and read about the case here

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Fulton v City of Philadelphia

Leave a comment

Philadelphia, like most cities, has a foster child program. They use private services to place kids with foster parents. In 2018, they barred Catholic Social Services (CSS) from fostering, because they won’t let any same-sex couples foster kids through them.

CSS was all like, “Bless you my son, but I believe this is a violation of the first amendment. Amen.”

But the City of Philadelphia was like, “Thanks for the blessings, but respectfully, go fuck yourself. You’re anti-gay bullshit doesn’t fly with us. We don’t care about your religion. It’s your anti-gay bullshit we object to. Even the pope has come around you dumb fucks.”

Justice Breyer queried,

Stephen G. Breyer

Well, you don’t have to say, according to them, whether the couple is married, whether it’s not married, whether it’s same-sex, whether it’s different sex.

You just put that to the side, make a note that you’re putting it to the side, and say, other than that, they’re okay or they’re not okay.

That’s all you have to do. Now what’s the problem? I still don’t quite see it.

You said in your response that you don’t want to do it, which I understand that you don’t.

But they say they’re imposing a requirement that does not interfere with your (religion), they can’t figure out how does it interfere.  And now tell me once again what’s the problem.

His argument being, that they’re not forcing them to adhere to any religious objections, they are just asking them to ignore it.

So now SCOTUS must decide if Philly is denying the CSS their ability to practice their religion.

In a unanimous decision, SCOTUS sided with Fulton. This is a plain violation of the first amendment. Mostly because the law itself was neutral in text, it allowed for the commissioner to discriminate. That’s a no-no.

Hear oral arguments and read about the case here.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-123

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: California v. Texas

Leave a comment

You all remember the days when the Affordable Care Act was challenged in SCOTUS, and Chief Justice Roberts argued that the penalty was a tax, and therefore constitutional, right?

Well since then, Republicans, unable to repeal Obamacare outright, made the penalty zero. So now that the penalty is zero, Republicans are now arguing it’s no longer a tax, and therefore the individual mandate is an unconstitutional mandate, and the law should be repealed entirely.

The ACA supporters will argue that the mandate is severable, meaning SCOTUS could remove the mandate clause and leave the rest of the law in tact. But Republicans are like, “That’s how the fucking law was paid for. So you can’t fucking sever it.”

So basically SCOTUS is being asked to re-review this case in light of this new change.

With regards to severing the law, Congress reduced the tax to zero, but didn’t repeal the law. If they had the power to do one, they had the power to do the other. So the argument is then made that it must be severable, because if congress wanted the law to be repealed, they’d have repealed it, not reduced the tax to zero.

But the argument to that, is that congress didn’t have the votes or support for a full repeal, but by removing the tax, they’re hoping SCOTUS will nullify it, effectively trying to make SCOTUS the “bad guy” in all this shit.

At one point, Justice Kavanaugh asked:

Brett M. Kavanaugh

Are you aware of any other examples in the U.S. Code at least where Congress has enacted a true mandate, not something hortatory, but a true mandate with no penalties?

Essentially questioning the validity of such a law knowing there’s no other instance where congress forces you to buy something. Social Security is forced retirement income, but you don’t go out and buy it, government just takes it as a tax.

The reason this is Texas v. California, is because Texas challenged the law, and California and other states are defending it.

In a 7:2 decision, where Alito and Gorsuch dissented, SCOTUS ruled in favor of California. Texas may not sue California over this bullshit. Texas hasn’t shown in any way how they were harmed by California and company, and therefore they have no grounds to be suing here.

Hear oral arguments and read about the case here.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-840

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Van Buren v. United States

Leave a comment

Scumbag cop Nathan Van Buren was “friends” with another scumbag, Andrew Albo. Albo liked the ladies. Especially the ones he paid to have sex with him. Van Buren decided to shake Albo down, and asked him for $15k to cover his son’s medical bills.

Here’s the rub, Van Buren’s son was perfectly healthy, and it was clearly just a shake down.

Albo, not the dullest knife in the drawer, recorded the conversation, and took it to the FBI who decided to set up a sting. They had Albo ask Van Buren to look up a woman he wanted to hire as a prostitute, to make sure she wasn’t a cop. Van Buren did so, and boom! Busted his ass.

So now he’s charged with wire fraud, using law enforcement databases for unlawful purposes. Van Buren’s argument is that he was authorized to use that database, and therefore it wasn’t fraud. So now SCOTUS has to decide whether using a database you’re authorized to use, but using it in a manner the job doesn’t provide for, constitutes wire fraud under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which prohibits anyone who “exceeds authorized access” on a computer, specifically it defines that as “to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accessor is not entitled so to obtain or alter.”

Counsel for Van Buren launched the opening salvo by arguing:

The CFAA is an anti-hacking statute. It prohibits obtaining information from a computer without authorization.

And to ensure comprehensive coverage, the statute also prohibits “exceeding authorized access.” As Judge Kozinski put it, this ensures that the statute covers not just outside but also inside hackers. In this case, however, the government seeks to transform the supplemental prong of the CFAA into an entirely different prohibition.

In the government’s view, this prong covers obtaining any information via computer that the accessor is not entitled “under the circumstances” to obtain. It is no overstatement to say that this construction would brand most Americans criminals on a daily basis.

The scenarios are practically limitless, but a few examples will suffice.

Imagine a secretary whose employee handbook says that her e-mail or Zoom account may be used only for business purposes.

Or consider a person using a dating website where users may not include false information on their profile to obtain information about potential mates.

Or think of a law student who is issued a log — log-in credentials for Westlaw or Lexis for educational use only. If the government is right, then a computer user who disregards any of these stated use restrictions commits a federal crime.

He makes a pretty valid point. And it seems odd that there isn’t just a specific law to prevent government officials who have access to our private information, from obtaining that for any non-business related use, and sharing it, or something like that. Seems like they know it’s wrong, but just don’t have a proper law to charge him with.

Neil Gorsuch thinking likeme asked,

Neil Gorsuch

And then, on the reverse parade of horribles we’ve heard from the other side, I guess I’m struggling to imagine how — how long that parade would be given the abundance of criminal laws available. So, if this one didn’t cover that kind of conduct, but there were troublesome forms of it, like your client’s behavior in this case, misusing a police database, I assume there are ample state laws available that criminalize a lot of that conduct.

Am I mistaken?

Jeffrey L. Fisher

No.

In fact, this case comes from Georgia, and Georgia itself has a statute about — about hacking or otherwise misusing computer information.

The government, as we point out in our — in our reply brief, the government gave a few hypotheticals in its brief, and almost every one of them is already addressed by some other provision of the — even the U.S. Code, let alone state law. And — and even — remember, my client himself has already lost his job and has other forms of punishment that have already been brought to bear.

In a 6:3 non-partisan decision, SCOTUS ruled for Van Buren. He’d have had to obtain info he was not authorized to have in order to have committed a crime. Sure, this was some personal and troubling bullshit, but it’s info he otherwise had access to. So while it’s kinda immoral, it isn’t illegal. If they don’t like it, they need to pass laws specifically to prevent it.

Hear oral arguments and read about the case here.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-783

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru

Leave a comment

Old-ass teacher Agnes Deirdre Morrissey-Berru taught at Our Lady of Guadalupe school. Apparently, she was so old, the school got sick of seeing her, and summarily kicked her to the curb.

There’s laws against age discrimination though—specifically the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Dear old sweet Agnes felt like Our Lady of Guadalupe had become Our Dirty Ass Bitch of Guadalupe, and filed suit, claiming she was discriminated against because she was so old, she knew Ivan the Terrible when he was just Ivan the Slightly Unpleasant.

However, those laws allow religious institutions exemptions for ministerial staff, and the school argued that good dear old sweet harmless Agnes was effectively a minister.

Agnes was like, “Goodness gracious! I took one class on religious studies. I never learned to be a minister. So please, go forth and multiply.” (Which is a polite way of saying “go fuck yourself.”)

A district court apparently found Guadalupe’s argument good enough, and sent Agnes’ old ass packing. But the ninth circuit was like, “Hold on a minute you lazy assholes. This old broad ain’t no minister.” And they sided with dear old sweet wonderful Agnes.

One of the issues at hand, is basically to define what the fuck a minister even is, and therefore who falls under that moniker.

But ultimately SCOTUS is being asked to decide if the first amendment’s religion clause allows the courts to get involved in all of this shit in the first place.

In a 7:2 decision, SCOTUS decided dear old sweet wonderful Agnes could fuck right the hell off, and take her chocolate chip cookies with her.

You see, the court has a long history of not sticking their nose in the church’s business. They’re not about to tell the church WTF a minister is. So they were like, “Sorry dear old sweet Agnes, you’re own your own you old biddy.”

Ginsburg and Sotomayor however were like, “Agnes isn’t even hardly teaching religion for fuck’s sake. Are you kidding us with this shit? She teaches secular shit. Hell, she doesn’t even have to be catholic here.

But the other seven were like, “fuck off, decision for Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Hear oral arguments or read about the case here.

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc.

Leave a comment

Back in 1991, the government passed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. It was basically a law preventing spammers from calling you on your cell phone via a machine (robocalls), and racking up costs for the phone’s owner. Obviously, in 1991, people were often paying for minutes of usage, whereas now, most phone plans have unlimited calling. But still, I hate these assholes, so I like the law.

There were exemptions, though. It allowed for emergency calls. And it allowed for calls when you had previously agreed to get them from that party.

In 2015, those assholes in congress added a provision to allow debt collection calls “owed to or guaranteed by the United States” as well. Any calls from the federal government in general are also allowed.

Along come these butt plugs from The American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., who love spamming the hell out of people with their surveys and shit. They claim their 1st amendment right to free speech is being limited by not allowing them to annoy the fuck out of all of us with cell phones wanting to talk to us about politics and shit. They argued that because the law limits calls based on content, allowing the government to make them, while these assholes can’t, versus banning all calls—this makes such a ban a 1A violation of free speech.

At one point, this scumbag also argued:

The government-debt exception confirms that Congress did not view the privacy interests here as compelling. That exception exposes 60 million Americans to unlimited calls to collect more than 4.2 trillion dollars in debt.

Those are the kinds of calls consumers hate the most. If Congress really thought privacy was paramount, it would not have allowed those calls.

While it’s true those are the calls people hate the most, the fact is, those people agreed to incur a debt, and agreed to allow the people who lent them money or services to collect that debt, and then they didn’t fucking pay it. I’ve been there, it’s annoying. But it’s no one’s fault but my own.

Yet these shady fuckhats want to call you and just shoot the breeze about who you plan on voting for and shit. Ain’t nobody got time for that, and I didn’t agree to that shit in advance. They also argue these calls are non-commercial, meaning they’re not trying to sell you anything. So that’s why they think it should be OK.

Both an appeals court and the fourth circuit were highly unimpressed with this bullshit argument. So here were are to determine if it’s a 1A violation or not.

In a 6:3 majority, the right-leaning justices along with Sotomayor agreed that the government-debt exception violates the 1st amendment. That the government doesn’t get to say you can be called if the debt is guaranteed by them, but restrict a private debt collector.

The interesting part, is while the government lost and AAPC won, technically, AAPC still can’t call your ass. Instead, SCOTUS ruled that this “government-backed debt collection” exemption could be struck from the law itself, while leaving the rest of the law in tact. So now, you cannot robocall for any debt collection to your cell phone, whether it’s backed by the government, or a private debt. So AAPC still can’t call your mobile phone, but neither can any other debt collector.

This is basically like when you’re a kid, and you’re mad your older brother can go out, and you can’t. So instead of letting you go out, your parents say your brother can’t either. You didn’t make your own situation better, you just made it worse for others.

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Chiafalo v. Washington

Leave a comment

Similar to Colorado Department of State v. Baca, but no longer enjoined with it, this involves faithless electors.

In Washington, as in other states, an elector is bound to vote for the winner of the popular vote in that state, and if they don’t, they can be fined $1,000.

Well, Chiafalo, despite Clinton winning their popular vote, cast a ballot for Colin Powell. Washington wasn’t amused, and levied the fine accordingly.

Chiafalo argued that it’s their first amendment right to choose whatever fucking candidate they want, regardless of what the people chose.

Lower courts sided with Washington, but Chiafalo kept insisting, so here we are at SCOTUS deciding how electors are to be managed, along with the Baca  case.

In a unanimous decision, SCOTUS decided that the states can set whatever fucking rules they want for electors. That the constitution delegated that power to the states, leaving it up to them to decide how their electors are to be managed.