ABORTION

abortion

With the Supreme Court ruling that a Louisiana law is too burdensome to people seeking abortions, the question of abortion and the death of fetuses has come to the forefront. I have a couple of scenarios and/or questions that I just don’t understand. Do fathers have a say in an abortion and if they don’t why do male judges have a say? If a person hurts a woman that  is pregnant, less than 8 weeks, and creates a miscarriage, is that murder? If a woman that is driving to get an abortion and gets into an accident by a drunk driver and creates a miscarriage, did (s)he commit murder? If it is murder, if my girlfriend or wife drinks or smokes during her pregnancy, which could create harm to the fetus can I get a restraining order or an injunction so she would have to stop? And if she causes that fetus to abort because she accidentally eats something that created a miscarriage is that manslaughter? babyslaughter? fetusslaughter? If you believe in the death penalty, are you allowed not to believe in abortions? And if you believe abortions are legal, are you allowed to believe that the death penalty is illegal? I am sure there are so many more questions but those just a few off the top of my head. I’m pro-choice but would never get an abortion, mainly because I’m not a seahorse, if you get that joke, you’re pretty damn smart.

SHARED NEWS: Josh Hawley warns Trump on Supreme Court disappointments. The GOP senator says the president needs to overhaul his process for picking nominees, in a swipe at top legal conservatives. POLITICO WRITTEN BY MARIANNE LEVINE

Supreme Court

When comments like that are made, it’s hard to justify or not believe that the third branch of government isn’t somewhat politicized or politically motivated. I really think we should look into how the Justices are selected and appointed and find a way to completely depoliticize how it’s done. They, and I am sure the justices would agree, are not there to push forward political agendas but to interpret laws and rules that are already in place and to determine if laws, that are passed, conflict with the original intent of the constitution. It’s my belief that the Justices should be apolitical and even  slightly robotic when it comes to their duties. This is not a knock on Sen. Hawley, he was just more open on what people on both sides of the aisle are thinking when this selection process is done.

TAXES

get what you pay for

People still complain about being treated like second class citizens while paying first class citizen taxes. Your complaints are you are being killed and  abused and you are paying for it to boot. If you feel like a second class citizen, pay second class taxes. That by the way is nothing, until they bump you up to a first class citizen.

THE SUPREME COURT

scotus 1

The Supreme Court made a ruling in the Title VII case and it made, in my opinion, the right call. It ruled that discriminating against a person on who they love unlawful and covered under federal law. It makes me think of nature vs nurture. If you believe that nature is the predominant influence, then you are most likely a believer of God, as he/she…. God controls nature, and if you feel that way, being born gay is what God made you than it can’t be wrong, because God doesn’t make mistakes and if you think God did, you can tell God that when you meet him, let’s see how that goes. If you believe in nurture, than you most likely believe in evolution, which also means that this is the way you evoluted, is that a word, which again can’t be wrong. Either way, your preference on who you choose to love can’t be wrong (unless, you know, the other person doesn’t feel the same and you decide to try and make them feel that way, but that’s a totally different Supreme Court case for the future) and any person who thinks it is can’t believe in God and/or evolution. Which makes them wrong.

And good for them, the LGBQT community, it is a much deserved win in a society that seems to be losing it’s mind. It goes to show what part of government must remain constant in common sense while the other parts seem to fluctuate.

I once again urge lawmakers to change the way that federal judges are chosen. I would think that the best way to choose federal judges would  be by letting an independent panel within the third part of government, the judicial part, choose and have a unanimous decision by the the  current Supreme Court judges affirm. If this is a separate part of government, then let them be separate.

Don’t elect me President, that would be one of the first things that would happen. I also wouldn’t want to be because I make silly decisions like the second thing that would happen, which would be a water fountain that has Corona Light, what… I said Light, less calories, with lime wedges all around the fountain. Mmmmmm…..

SHARED NEWS: SCOTUSBLOG

scotusblog

Reblogging a blog by John Elwood:

Relist Watch: 100 years of solitude

John Elwood briefly reviews Monday’s relists.

Wow. It’s been a longweek. As if the coronavirus weren’t enough all on its own, there’s fresh newsofother disasters. By which I mean parents everywhere realizing their wish they could spend more time with their familiesmight actually be coming true.

My forecast last week that “we’ll be seeing opinions in some of th[e relisted cases] soon” turned out to be correct. The Supreme Court summarily reversed in Davis v. United States19-5421, invalidating the unique rule of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit holding that factual error is categorically immune from plain error review. It took the court just two paragraphs of analysis to dispatch it. The court then GVR’d (granted, vacated and remanded) in two cases raising the same issue, Bazan v. United States19-6113, and Bazan v. United States19-6431. You aren’t having some quarantine-induced mental breakdown: Both cases involve the same defendant. Finally, the court denied review in Avery v. United States19-633,involving a similarly atextual rule. Section 2244(b)(1) of Title 28 creates a rule covering applications by state prisoners for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Yet six courts of appeals have interpreted the statute to cover applications filed not just by state prisoners under Section 2254, but also by federal prisoners under Section 2255, which the statute does not mention. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote an opinion respecting denial to emphasize that “the Government now disagrees with the rulings of the six Courts of Appeals that had previously decided the issue in the Government’s favor,” and essentially warned the Justice Department to start confessing error now, writing “[i]n a future case, I would grant certiorari to resolve the circuit split.”

There are three new relists this week, but the first two grow out of a single incident. There are a lot of moving parts in Brownback v. King19-546, and King v. Brownback19-718, so pay as much attention as your squalling children and blaring smoke detector permit. Douglas Brownback was an FBI special agent; Todd Allen was a detective with the Grand Rapids, Michigan, police department. Both worked for an FBI-directed fugitive task force. James King, who is of broadly the same height (within a five-inch range), build (“thin”) and age (within five years) as a known fugitive, had the misfortune to buy a soda from a particular gas station during the same two-hour period when the fugitive usually did so. Brownback and Allen, wearing plain clothes but with badges on lanyards, stopped King and had him put his hands on his head. They removed a pocketknife from his pocket, but when they also removed his wallet, King asked, “Are you mugging me?” and began running. What apparently followed was some tackling (of King), some biting (by King), and a whole lot of punching (by a bitten Allen). Michigan charged King with assault with intent to do great bodily harm, aggravated assault of a police officer and resisting arrest, but a jury acquitted him.

King then sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity allowing claimants to sue the federal government for “negligent or wrongful act[s] or omission[s]” if a private person would have been liable under those circumstances under state law. King also sued the federal government for constitutional violations on individual-capacity claims against the agents under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court entered judgment for the federal government on the FTCA claims because the actions were taken within the scope of the agents’ authority in good faith, denied the Section 1983 claims on the ground that the statute applies only to state officials and the FBI was running the show here (even for the state agents), and denied the Bivens claim on the merits on the ground that the police had not violated King’s constitutional rights.

King did not appeal his FTCA claims — only his Bivens and Section 1983 claims against the individual officers. The officers argued (through their government lawyers) that the claims were barred by the act’s “judgment bar,” which provides that “the judgment in an action under [the FTCA] shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.” A majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit concluded that because King had not adequately pleaded all the elements of an FTCA claim in district court, that court never had jurisdiction over the claim, and, as a non-merits disposition, the district court’s decision did not trigger the judgment bar. The majority then concluded that the claim was properly brought under Bivens and not Section 1983 because the conduct was fairly attributable to the FBI and not the state of Michigan. The court also determined that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity under Bivens. Judge John Rogers (who apparently ties judge Jeffrey Sutton as the 6th Circuit’s most prolific judge) dissented on the grounds that the Bivens claims were precluded by the FTCA’s judgment bar.

Are you still here? I guess people really are hard-up for entertainment during the quarantine. In any event, the federal government sought review, and King filed a conditional cross-petition. The government argues that the final judgment in favor of the United States under the FTCA should bar the Bivens claims. King argues that Allen’s membership in a joint state-federal task force does not preclude him from acting “under color of state law” for purposes of being liable under Section 1983.

The third relist requires way less wind-up. Priscilla Daydee Valdez put an acquaintance in Mexico in touch with someone she knew in Tucson, Arizona, to buy ammunition. Valdez transferred money between the two and then traveled to the store, where her Tucson acquaintance bought 10,000 rounds of ammunition in a transaction I’m confident the clerk thought was completely above-board. They then drove to a spot near the Mexican border and left the car for a time, returning to an empty car after receiving a call that the car was “ready.” Valdez pleaded guilty to charges of attempting to export ammunition, which included a forfeiture count. Although the relevant firearm statute, 18 U.S.C. § 924, provides only for forfeiture of ammunition used in a federal offense, other statutes, namely 21 U.S.C. §§ 853(a) and 2461(c), provide for the forfeiture of “any other property of the defendant” if, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant, the forfeitable property is unavailable. The district court ordered Valdez, who is indigent, to forfeit money of her own because the forfeitable ammunition had disappeared, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed.

Valdez seeks review, arguing that the government can require her to forfeit substitute property only if the original forfeitable property was also hers, and the ammunition here was not. If we have learned anything from the relists and opinions in Davisand Avery, and for that matter the relist in Brownback, it’s that the justices take the wording of provisions seriously. They’re undoubtedly taking a very close look at the forfeiture statutes here.

That’s all this week. Everyone enjoy your familytime!

Manny’s blog opinion:

First of all, John sells himself short on the entertainment factor. A guy buying a soda, getting mugged by police/FBI task force, then running because he thought he was getting mugged, gets tackled and then biting the officers and the officers punching him repeatedly in the face is pretty entertaining. Then the obvious flaw in a judicial system that makes it so hard to hold people accountable for their actions is also pretty fun to read. Now if SCOTUSBLOG had gone the extra mile of re-enacting the situation, that would have been pretty amazing.

As for my opinion, that is of course of a guy sitting on his couch eating twinkies while watching law and order, which makes me expert on all things judicial, Valdez, who had her ammunition stolen, is going to lose her case. The property was hers until she personally hands it off. If I bought a TV for my friend and he gave me the money and it was stolen from my car as I entered the bodega to buy my twinkies, I would have to file the stolen items report, not my friend, even though he gave me the money to buy it. The TV is mine until I give it to him, or transfer the property personally, that of course, is just my opinion, in laymen twinkie terms. I can see Valdez losing this case but who knows, the law is weird.

 

WEINSTEIN: DRAMA AND DILEMMA

 

weintein accusers
Brave women who found their date in court

Ever wonder why someone would do something as horrific as what Ol’ Harvey did and get away with it for such a long time? We’ve entered the third millennium of the calendar of the lord, if you believe in that, if not, then since one of the Ceasars decided to make his birth the beginning of time, either way that’s more than two thousand years minus the twenty or thirty thousand prior to that and we still have some bad hombres that feel that they can force, coerce, threaten or otherwise intimidate women into sex. Ol’ Harvey, with his sad heart condition, still feels that he did nothing wrong. That it was his right or, I don’t know, his authority maybe…. that women should cower, be at his beck and call, allow themselves to be taken advantage of, for his pleasure. The State of New York disagreed and sentenced Ol’ Harvey to 23 years of prison, where I am sure he will be in his own production of Harvey does Sing Sing, I wonder what tune he will be singing though (fill in your own song, I won’t even take a shot at it) which his lawyer said that at his age amounts to a life sentence. That of course doesn’t include the pending charges in Los Angeles, which I say, good for LA for not turning a blind eye to someone who would do that. Ol’ harvey didn’t really care what he did when he was doing it, ruining families and creating trauma, but now he’s sorry. My guess is that he is just sorry that he got caught, because prior to that he didn’t seem contrite at all. I do have one question, being that this behavior happened in two different states, where the hell are the Feds? Why haven’t they filed their own charges given that they aren’t bound by statute of limitations and these crimes are some of the most horrific that can be done to another person, where the hell are my tax dollars, if I paid taxes, going? I don’t know but at least NY and LA decided to take Ol’ Harvey’s deeds to task and good for them.

FAKE CENSUS LETTER

census letter

I received one of these fake census letters. I thought it was real and it didn’t mention any political messages that I recall. The problem with a fake census letter is that you don’t know who sent it and for it to state that it was from the Department of Commerce, it would be impossible for it to have a political message as it would violate the Hatch Act, a violation of federal law that would put someone in jail. My guess is that ICE mailed these letters in a scam to try and find illegal citizens. It wouldn’t be the first time that ICE would set up a sting to try and get information about citizens. I don’t know who got the letter but I’m Hispanic and it might be interesting to find out who else received the letter.

MORE REASONS TO HAVE THE SUPREME COURT PICK THEIR OWN NOMINEES

scotus 1

Another reason why the Supreme Court should pick their own nominees for the position of judges. In a recent article, the writer who is reporting on a case currently in the Appellate court, makes mention of who appointed the judges deciding the case. While this has no bearing on their decision, the mention of it, which is totally appropriate, gives the allusion of partisanship. Read the part of the article below and tell me if it didn’t stick in your mind

 

“Griffith, a Republican appointee, and Judge Judith Rogers, a Democratic appointee, questioned the administration’s arguments that the House panel has no legal standing to enforce its subpoena and that there is broad presidential immunity that applies to efforts to seek testimony from close advisers.

The other judge, Republican appointee Karen Henderson, said little.” Reported by Reuters

If that article had read that the judges were appointed by the Supreme Court, then it would make you feel different about any partisanship. Optics matter, even if they aren’t true. I think it’s time to find a reasonable solution that allows the Supreme Court or a cabinet appointed by them, to select who will be on the judiciary.

DEPORTED VETERANS

deported veterans

This article is going to be short. I notice that most, if not all, deported veterans are of Hispanic descent. I understand that coming into the country illegally is wrong but if you wanted to deport these brave souls who put their lives on the line for our country, wouldn’t it have made more sense to have done it prior to their enlistment and their service to our and their country? What no news article has ever researched or reported on is how many illegal citizens have died in these foreign wars for us. When I served in the military, joined during the first gulf war, they checked my immigration status. The military found me legally able to serve, doesn’t that automatically give these people the right to stay in the country when an arm of the government finds them lawfully able to put their lives on the line? Isn’t a DD-214 just as good as a green card? It’s unseemly to be seen as a country that doesn’t fight it’s own wars and battles. It almost looks like we kidnap people from other countries, make them fight our wars and then kick them back out. We should give these people their citizenship and then, if they break a law, treat them like someone who has broken a law, not an a foreign intruder or enemy combatant.

Other countries that allow foreign fighters offer these soldiers citizenship after a certain amount of time of service, most notably the French Foreign Legion who offers these soldiers French Citizenship after three years of service.

Kindness

KINDNESS IS FREE, sprinkle it all over the world and 😁 smile