Fogbow

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:35 am That NY State gun law was from 1913, a good 109 year run. But as the new Trump Justices stated in their Senate appearances, it is settled law.

Oh wait.

Poor Susan Collins. She must be so confused.

Question is this only striking down the NY law or is this an opening for nationwide concealed carry in places like say DC?

Dr. Ken wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:23 pm

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:35 am That NY State gun law was from 1913, a good 109 year run. But as the new Trump Justices stated in their Senate appearances, it is settled law.

Oh wait.

Poor Susan Collins. She must be so confused.

Question is this only striking down the NY law or is this an opening for nationwide concealed carry in places like say DC?

Dunno, but my reading (IANAL) says the latter. Here is NPR's take:

The court's majority opinion is loaded with hints that it will not tolerate many of the gun regulations that until now have been upheld as necessary for public safety. From here on out, the courts are to look only at the time the bill of rights was enacted, as a guide for whether a regulation is permissible.

As Michael Waldman of the Brennan center puts it, "basically what this means is that the NRA and other gun-rights adherents will have a do-over and can challenge and will challenge dozens and dozens of gun laws well outside New York, well outside the issue of handguns, saying that all the courts that upheld them in the past — they just were doing it wrong. And now they have to find their inner Clarence Thomas to understand what's allowed."

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/11029954 ... inion-guns

The Supreme Court limited the ability to enforce Miranda rights in a ruling Thursday that said that suspects who are not warned about their right to remain silent cannot sue a police officer for damages under federal civil rights law even if the evidence was ultimately used against them in their criminal trial.

I dug into the backstory:

A medical worker was suspected of sexually abusing a patient. A deputy and the worker went, alone, into a small room at the medical center to talk about the accusation. After their "conversation," the worker admitted that he had sexually abused a patient and wrote a letter of apology.

What happened in the room was disputed: The worker said the deputy blocked the only way out and made various threats; the deputy said it was a consensual conversation, and there were neither threats nor blocked egress. But it was undisputed that the deputy never gave the Miranda warnings.

After criminal charges were filed against the worker, two different judges essentially agreed with the deputy, and ruled the statements were admissible. N.B.: Miranda applies only to custodial statements, that is, those made while in custody. So the judges essentially were saying the worker was free to leave. But a jury still found the worker not guilty.

The worker then sued the deputy (and others). That jury ruled in favor of the deputy. The 9th Cir., after a sharply divided en banc argument, ruled in favor of the worker and ordered a new trial.

* * *

Dr. Ken wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:23 pmQuestion is this only striking down the NY law or is this an opening for nationwide concealed carry in places like say DC?

The ruling only strikes down the New York law. But it is going to encourage similar lawsuits in D.C., etc.

Conservatives/reactionaries have been working to get the Supreme Court in a position to put their wildest dreams into place for forty years. They are there.

During the Clinton/Trump campaign, I warned about SCOTUS. For me, that was the most important issue. My friends who were Bernie bros hated her and claimed they were voting for Trump to teach the Dems a lesson. They ridiculed me for my concern about Roe. They posted horrible, vicious rants on my facebook, then most of them defriended me. I defriended the ones who didn't. They believed that Clinton was covering up the Dem pedophiles. They believed any shit that Trump said about her. Sometimes, but rarely, I wonder if they regret their choice.

Anyway.... I avoid this topic. I knew it would be awful.

It's just breading, but do I have this right? Roe is reversed and goes back to the states to make their own laws, but New York yesterday was told that they can't make their own choices for gun legislation?

Kendra wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:15 am It's just breading, but do I have this right? Roe is reversed and goes back to the states to make their own laws, but New York yesterday was told that they can't make their own choices for gun legislation?

Heads I win, tails you lose.

Also, too, McConnell has already said they are drafting federal legislation re: Roe in anticipation of taking Congress in the midterms.

FUCK THESE PEOPLE! FUCK ALL THESE PEOPLE!!



Of course, on a Friday cause they think it help mitigate the damage.

Women's rights are human rights. The states shouldn't have a say.

They are coming after contraception, same-sex relations, and gay marriage next. Thanks Trump.

It might, after today, be tough to get, but Amazon carries the "abortion pill." It has a stable shelf life of several years, I understand.

Now if the Democrats don't campaign on this and the other bullshit from now until November they'd be making a huge mistake. There's no reason they shouldn't be able to galvanize their base around this.

Hopefully, they can galvanize more than their base.

neonzx wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:40 am They are coming after contraception, same-sex relations, and gay marriage next. Thanks Trump.

I am wondering if there is going to be a move on the 14th amendment itself. A lot of the logic against the various cases that depend on it came from the same crowd that claims the 14th amendment is not valid in the first place. Given how we are seeing more and more 'quiet part out loud', I would not be surprised if we see an explicit attack on the amendment in the near future.

Dr. Ken wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:51 am Now if the Democrats don't campaign on this and the other bullshit from now until November they'd be making a huge mistake. There's no reason they shouldn't be able to galvanize their base around this.

It is a tricky thing to galvanize around though. The GoP can really rally around 'you are mad, we will hurt them!' vaugeries, but democrats do not respond nearly as well to that.

As someone just pointed out, abortion is health care. The Democrats did pretty well with that in the election when that was important.

neeneko wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:12 am

Dr. Ken wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:51 am Now if the Democrats don't campaign on this and the other bullshit from now until November they'd be making a huge mistake. There's no reason they shouldn't be able to galvanize their base around this.

It is a tricky thing to galvanize around though. The GoP can really rally around 'you are mad, we will hurt them!' vaugeries, but democrats do not respond nearly as well to that.

It’s not a matter of “hurting them”. It’s a matter of holding “them” back from worse actions and having enough power to start up what I’m sure will be a long road back to sanity. Fight in every community, for every office at every level. And NEVER, NEVER, NEVER GIVE UP!!

Manchin: “I am deeply disappointed that the Supreme Court has voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. … I trusted Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v. Wade was settled legal precedent and I am alarmed they chose to reject” it

Kendra wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:36 am https://twitter.com/sifitkammfp/status/ ... 4444133379

Manchin: “I am deeply disappointed that the Supreme Court has voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. … I trusted Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v. Wade was settled legal precedent and I am alarmed they chose to reject” it

Jesse Rodriguez @JesseRodriguez wrote: Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME): “This decision is inconsistent with what Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said in their testimony and their meetings with me, where they both were insistent on the importance of supporting long-standing precedents that the country has relied upon.”

She's a piece of shit. I try not wish ill upon people, but she is a personal exemption for me.

Trying to remember if she’s (Collins) ever been worth anything except as a reliably useful idiot for Republicans who can count on her vote no matter what. Has she made anyones life better with her legislating over the years?

But it’s not all her fault.

As far as I can tell, Republicans have been lying to us from the git go.

Lani wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:43 am During the Clinton/Trump campaign, I warned about SCOTUS. For me, that was the most important issue. My friends who were Bernie bros hated her and claimed they were voting for Trump to teach the Dems a lesson. They ridiculed me for my concern about Roe. They posted horrible, vicious rants on my facebook, then most of them defriended me. I defriended the ones who didn't. They believed that Clinton was covering up the Dem pedophiles. They believed any shit that Trump said about her. Sometimes, but rarely, I wonder if they regret their choice.

Anyway.... I avoid this topic. I knew it would be awful.

Screw that. I saw people saying that on facebook LAST NIGHT to punish Biden for appinting some idiot to a non partisan advisory board in May.

Why should the Republicans abandon a succesful stratagy

That said, I bet Mitch McConnel is getting drunk right about now. A strike against Roe was the last thing he ever wanted.

I say no more.

Suranis wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:11 pm That said, I bet Mitch McConnel is getting drunk right about now. A strike against Roe was the last thing he ever wanted.

I say no more.

Bullshit. McConnell has been talking about pushing a federal ban on abortion if Roe v. Wade were overturned for months. He's giddy.

I'll give you that he's probably knee deep in his bourbon Manhattans right now, but for a different reason.