Tag Archives: Average Joe SCOTUS

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it’s no longer a tax, and therefore the individual mandate is an unconstitutional mandate, and the law should be repealed entirely.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 So the argument is then made that it must be severable, because if congress wanted the law to be repealed, they’d have repealed it, not reduced the tax to zero.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: CIC Services LLC v. Internal Revenue Service

Leave a comment

Back in 2004, Congress decided to charge the commie fucks at the IRS with trying to uncover tax shelters, because it’s never really YOUR money now, is it?

The IRS went about this by requiring accountants to report “reportable transactions” which they would go on to define. If not paid, there would be a hefty fine, we’re calling a tax. November 2016, they included what they called “micro-captive transactions,” which if not reported, would put the IRS gestapo on your ass.

CIC services, a company that does these micro-captive transactions decided to sue, arguing that the IRS’s rule violates the Anti-Injunction Act which says, “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.”

CIC argued they were harmed, because this rule was enforced without any prior discussion, and therefore they didn’t have time to properly comply with it, and this is against rules set for in the Anti-Injunction Act. While the text of the AIA bars certain taxes, CIC is basically arguing tax rules, that aren’t necessarily taxes, should be barred as well for the same reason, since they consider the fines for violating the rules, also a tax.

As CIC’s counsel stated in summation:

Cameron T. Norris

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Notice 16-66 labels my client’s industry a reportable transaction, a kind of scarlet letter that triggers burdensome reporting requirements and makes it much harder to attract clients. Labeling something a reportable transaction is serious, which is why Congress told the IRS to use notice-and-comment rulemaking.

When the IRS refused to do that, CIC did precisely what we want law-abiding citizens to do: It filed a pre-enforcement suit under the APA, and it is fully complying with the reporting requirements while its case is pending. According to the government, however, what CIC should have done is deliberately violate the tax code.

The government’s path would require CIC’s members to commit a crime, violate their ethical obligations, and convince the IRS to assess it tax penalties.

No law-abiding company or individual would ever do this. Ruling for the government, thus, does not delay judicial review, it denies it altogether.

At the heart of this matter, CIC is basically arguing that the only way they can fight this tax, is to break the law first, by not submitting the info. Then when hit with a fine, challenge that fine in order to get the courts to review it. They obviously think that’s pretty goddamn unfair. They believe they should be able to challenge it before they violate it, which they’re trying to do here, and a judgement for them would give them.

In a unanimous decision, SCOTUS ruled in favor of CIC Services. They can indeed sue without triggering and Anti-Injunction Act. They did the right thing, and they’ve been vindicated.

Hear oral arguments and read about the case here.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-930

SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Edwards v. Vannoy

Leave a comment

Alleged all around scumbag Thedrick Edwards was convicted of several robberies and rape in 2006. Here’s the rub with that shit. At Edwards trial, the prosecutor excluded every black juror they could, and the one remaining voted to acquit. But in Louisiana, at the time, only a 10-2 vote was needed for a conviction, so off to prison he went.

Since then, last year, SCOTUS decided Ramos v. Louisiana, where they basically made it law of the land that a jury must be unanimous for convictions in all state and federal courts. So now this case is to decide if that ruling is retroactive, and thus Edwards should get a hung jury, and potentially be forced to either be retried, or have his case dropped.

Andre Belanger, counsel for Edwards,  swung for the fences when he closed by saying:

Jury unanimity predates the founding and ranks amongst our most indispensable rights. It significantly improves the accuracy and fairness because a verdict taken from 11 is no verdict at all. The state has no legitimate interests in avoiding retroactivity.

Louisiana’s nonunanimous jury scheme was thoroughly racist and discriminatory in its origin.

As members of this Court said in Ramos, we should not perpetuate something we all know to be wrong only because we fear the consequences of being right. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Counsel for Vannos is basically arguing the merits of having convictions for crimes when she opened up by saying:

There can be no doubt that declaring the Ramos rule retroactive unsettles thousands of cases that involve terrible crimes in all three jurisdictions.

Requiring new trials in long-final criminal cases would be impossible in sum and particularly unfair to the victims of these crimes. Ramos is unquestionably a new rule. This Court has held on numerous occasions that a discarded precedent is the clearest sign of a new rule.

She’s basically arguing that she doesn’t give a fuck if some of these people are wrongly convicted according to the new Ramos rule, it’ll be a bunch of work for the state of Louisiana to deal with all these people wrongly convicted. This position is depraved AF.

In closing arguments, counsel for Edwards again, dropped a pretty heavy hammer, stating:

As this Court said in Ballew, the risk of sending 10 innocent people to jail is greater than the risk of sending one guilty person free.

In the end, the state has no legitimate interest in avoiding retroactivity but for its desire to let Mr. Edwards languish in Angola for the rest of his life. On what grounds can we let this happen when we know his conviction is unconstitutional? The answer to that question is none. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

In a 6:3 partisan decision, SCOTUS ruled in favor of Vannoy. The unanimity rule is not retroactive. In order for this to be retroactive, it would have to be what they call a “watershed” exception. They defined this as “alters our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of a proceeding.”

Since this is simply a new rule, a new opinion, a new precedent, or whatever the fuck you want to call it, it isn’t a “watershed” thing, and thus isn’t retroactive.

Hear oral arguments and read about the case here.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-5807

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.