Skip Navigation

FireTower

@ FireTower @lemmy.world

Posts
47
Comments
502
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era ban on bump stocks, gun accessories used in 2017 Vegas massacre

    Jump

  • This case wasn't about rights it was about administrative policy and legislation. They seemed to actually be subtlely nudging for Congress to act in the opinion.

  • Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era ban on bump stocks, gun accessories used in 2017 Vegas massacre

    Jump

  • Mock v Garland is the case you want to follow.

  • Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era ban on bump stocks, gun accessories used in 2017 Vegas massacre

    Jump

  • I've followed it and the first paragraph is spot on. But I'd argue something doesn't have to be a firearm to be protected, see Caetano v Massachusetts. It probably would also protect other items adjacent or necessary for the intended purposes of the amendment; like some types of ammo, parts, or accessories. If bumpstocks fall into that is another question though. Reading the tea leaves it doesn't seem like it.

    But, it instead enacted a statute that turns on whether a weapon can fire more than one shot “automatically . . . by a single function of the trigger.” §5845(b). And, “it is never our job to rewrite . . . statutory text under the banner of speculation about what Congress might have done.” -pg 19

  • Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era ban on bump stocks, gun accessories used in 2017 Vegas massacre

    Jump

  • The TLDR of the opinion is that they held the BATFE acted outside of statutory authority, acting as the legislature making new law with the administrative policy.

  • Elon Musk Offered Horse To Flight Attendant In Exchange For Sex: Report

    Jump

  • Settlements are always necessarily dispositive of the truth. Sometimes it makes sense to just pay a settlement fee than to go through litigation if you expect your attorney fees to be greater than the settlement cost. Also it's not uncommon for settlements agreements to not confirm allegations so as to not benefit future cases against the defendant.

  • Argentina inflation slows to 4.2% m/m in May

    Jump

  • That's a really big reduction. Won't be over soon but it sounds like they're getting on the right path economically.

  • Supreme Court rejects bid to restrict access to abortion pill

    Jump

  • Supreme Court rejects bid to restrict access to abortion pill

    Jump

  • Moreover, the law has never permitted doctors to challenge the government’s loosening of general public safety requirements simply because more individuals might then show up at emergency rooms or in doctors’ offices with follow-on injuries. Citizens and doctors who object to what the law allows others to do may always take their concerns to the Executive and Legislative Branches and seek greater regulatory or legislative restrictions

    Pg 3 of the opinion is pretty clear that launching a case against the government for not banning something will just result in your case being DOA. Yes its technically a standing issue, but they've essentially ruled that you can't have standing to sue under this situation. Effectively ruling on the merits.

    It didn't protect access in the sense that it prevented legislation restricting it but it did prevent unmerited lawsuits seeking to prevent its national sale.

  • Supreme Court rejects bid to restrict access to abortion pill

    Jump

  • Moreover, the law has never permitted doctors to challenge the government’s loosening of general public safety requirements simply because more individuals might then show up at emergency rooms or in doctors’ offices with follow-on injuries. Citizens and doctors who object to what the law allows others to do may always take their concerns to the Executive and Legislative Branches and seek greater regulatory or legislative restrictions

    Pg 3 of the opinion

    No one wants to set a precedent for sueing the government every time they don't stop a potential bad thing from happening.

  • Supreme Court preserves access to abortion pill - SCOTUSblog

    Jump

  • It'll be a hard time finding another plaintiff with propper standing in a case on this question, given the nature of the medicine.

    Even if they were to get standing, saying the government not restricting something that may cause harm is actionable seems like a tough position to attend. Especially given this line in the opinion:

    Moreover, the law has never permitted doctors to challenge the government’s loosening of general public safety requirements simply because more individuals might then show up at emergency rooms or in doctors’ offices with follow-on injuries. Citizens and doctors who object to what the law allows others to do may always take their concerns to the Executive and Legislative Branches and seek greater regulatory or legislative restrictions

  • Oklahoma Supreme Court dismisses lawsuit of last Tulsa Race Massacre survivors seeking reparations

    Jump

  • The court seems to feel that the events were bad but there are issues proving the plaintiff was directly harmed and the legal theory of nuisance here seem like a stretch.

    But if they won, best case scenario they'd make out with cash damages and the vindication of having a judge saying the government was wrong.

  • Supreme Court rules U.S. must pay more for Native American tribes’ health care - SCOTUSblog

    Jump

  • He also had a lot of rulings that didn't necessarily fit his personal opinions due to his originalist interpretation style. I know he had said that the death penalty is constitutional and stupid.

  • Supreme Court rules U.S. must pay more for Native American tribes’ health care - SCOTUSblog

    Jump

  • If your going off of a progressive-conservative scale rather than a living constitutionalist vs originalist one Id probably peg him more conservative than Roberts and Gorsuch, but less than Alito and Thomas.

    That said most of the Scotus cases are over boring things that only lawyers care about, with questions like what a navigable river is or the validity of contracts. And ~30% of the time it's a 9-0. There's probably a few Thomas and Alito opinions you might find yourself getting behind, maybe not the hot button ones but the boring ones.

  • Clarence Thomas admits billionaire paid for private club membership and luxury Bali trips

    Jump

  • This was a standard disclosure. Feeling 'the heat' has nothing to do with it. Jackson got 1.2k in flowers from Opera. Appointed officials shouldn't be able to accept any form of donations above a very minor amount like $20.

    https://youtu.be/R4bw88-tzSg

  • Removed

    YSK: lemmy.ml is managed by tankies, and lead lemmy developer is a tankie

    Jump

  • Kyle Rittenhouse mocked for trying to make ‘gay’ a slur on the first day of Pride Month

    Jump

  • Agreed. This story is essentially "Guy who was relevant years ago says 'Ur Gay' to someone on Internet". Which while disagreeable isn't something I'd expect people rushing to the presses about.

  • Fraud trial juror reports getting bag of $120,000 and promise of more if she'll acquit

    Jump

  • Because that money belongs to someone, presumably the party that was defrauded.

  • Roberts rejects Senate Democrats' request to discuss Supreme Court ethics and Alito flag controversy

    Jump

  • I wasn't taking that personally, my point was that in America the sovereign power rests in the people (vs England in the crown). We hold the authority under which the government exists.

  • Removed

    The Antisemitism Awareness Act is a full frontal assault on free speech

    Jump

  • Tldr on the topic from another article I read:

    Instead, the bill requires only the Department of Education, which is in charge of federal grants for financial aid and funding of schools, to consider the definition of antisemitism when investigating programs that receive federal funding. Essentially, it gives the Education Department the ability to pull funding if it finds discrimination "based on race, color, or national origin," something known as a Title VI investigation.

    https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/05/13/antisemitism-awareness-act-explain/

    The definition used is an 11 point one explained in the above article. The gripes are basically that the definition is broad enough to include what many feel should be protected speech and this would curtail criticism of Israel.