The tyranny of the judiciary

mjc said:

Sounds like bad news for people who want to legitimately protest in the Fifth Circuit area.

Does it intersect at all with trial(s) of Jan. 6 leader(s)?

To clarify, the Fifth Circuit panel did not rule that the plaintiff had proved that Mckesson met the standard for negligence in organizing the protest and is therefore liable for the officer’s injuries. What it did was decline to throw out the case, allowing it to proceed at the trial court level.

“Our limited holding guarantees only that Doe may proceed to discovery on his negligence claim. It does not guarantee that he will prevail on that claim.”

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-30864-CV4.pdf

Aha, did not realize the Fifth had not ruled against Mckesson, thanks.

Mostly joking about Jan. 6 (not usually a funny subject, but...) -- thinking it'd be a silver lining if the reasoning in holding Mr. Mckesson liable could be applied to ****.

DaveSchmidt said:

mjc said:

Sounds like bad news for people who want to legitimately protest in the Fifth Circuit area.

Does it intersect at all with trial(s) of Jan. 6 leader(s)?

To clarify, the Fifth Circuit panel did not rule that the plaintiff had proved that Mckesson met the standard for negligence in organizing the protest and is therefore liable for the officer’s injuries. What it did was decline to throw out the case, allowing it to proceed at the trial court level.

“Our limited holding guarantees only that Doe may proceed to discovery on his negligence claim. It does not guarantee that he will prevail on that claim.”

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-30864-CV4.pdf

SCOTUS took one of several possible actions on this case. The arguably chose the worst action, if one cares about the right to protest . As a result, the right to protest is still very much in jeopardy in 3 states, controlled by a 5th circuit decision that is clearly unconstitutional.

While I'm not hyper ventilating about it, this is worrisome. And another example of the subject of this thread.

drummerboy said:

While I'm not hyper ventilating about it, this is worrisome. And another example of the subject of this thread.

I read the Fifth Circuit ruling. I posted a summary of the action and a link, in case anyone else was interested in what the court wrote. I made no comment on your opinion.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

While I'm not hyper ventilating about it, this is worrisome. And another example of the subject of this thread.

I read the Fifth Circuit ruling. I posted a summary of the action and a link, in case anyone else was interested in what the court wrote. I made no comment on your opinion.

yeah, but I knew what you were thinking

drummerboy said:

yeah, but I knew what you were thinking

I was thinking you probably hadn’t looked at the primary source.

it wasn't necessary to read the decision to know the essentials of what happened.

Reviving this thread, and altering course somewhat:

I’m trying to understand the implications of the most recent SCOTUS ruling re homelessness, for the City of Grants Pass, Oregon. Sleeping or napping anywhere outside on public land (especially if covered even partially with a blanket or even using a squished shirt as a pillow) is enough to get arrested and imprisoned. 
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2024/jun/28/supreme-court-decision-unhoused-sleeping-outside

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj774nxrpy7o

OK. I get the objective, ‘let’s remove the unhoused from our streets and our city’. But, what if I’m sitting on a park bench after a jog, or resting on a picnic blanket after a sandwich and I fall asleep in the sun?? Not all homeless look tatty and smell…  Or I could’ve just been hiking and come back to my car, and napped for an hour before driving 2.5hrs home…. this is now illegal?  Dozing in the bus or train is now illegal??

I’m SO confused. I have no idea how on earth such laws would be enforced. (Not everyone has a drivers licence or photo id with current address)

joanne said:

OK. I get the objective, ‘let’s remove the unhoused from our streets and our city’. But, what if I’m sitting on a park bench after a jog, or resting on a picnic blanket after a sandwich and I fall asleep in the sun?? Not all homeless look tatty and smell… Or I could’ve just been hiking and come back to my car, and napped for an hour before driving 2.5hrs home…. this is now illegal? Dozing in the bus or train is now illegal??

Belatedly, joanne, here’s the Grants Pass ordinance. The sleeping ban applies to sleeping on public sidewalks, in streets, in alleyways and in pedestrian and vehicular entrances. Benches fall under the camping prohibition, which is probably a way to allow for non-camping naps.

https://www.grantspassoregon.gov/DocumentCenter/View/38/Title-5--Nuisances-and-Offenses-?bidId=

Dave, thanks - I read that too. Which is more than ever why I’m confused. There have already been many YouTube clips of eager police ‘moving on’ (trying to arrest) people sitting in their cars or lying on blankets (reading, playing games, talking on phones etc) but not yet napping (AND having their picnic butter knives confiscated as dangerous/illegal weaponry!!)…  

Can’t lovers sit on the sand at night anymore? Or cuddle? What about sunbathing somewhere quiet, with your eyes closed? 
Our beaches (our entire coastline) are public property, therefore open 24/7 unless there’s a special event (a concert, fireworks, etc). While camping per se usually isn’t permitted, quiet parties and informal gatherings would be; fishing, surfing, midnight swims & picnics & hangis etc take place regularly around the clock. Just clean up after you. 
Such a different attitude. 

Joe Biden: My plan to reform the Supreme Court and ensure no president is above the law (published in Washington Post. Gift link)

PVW said:

Joe Biden: My plan to reform the Supreme Court and ensure no president is above the law (published in Washington Post. Gift link)

Biden will be speaking about it shortly.

Here's a good summary of the saga of Ginni Thomas and how she has been central to the corruption of the court over the last 30 years. Nothing really new here but it nicely collects it all together as a chronology.

and a word to pvw and others who look askance at videos. 

I think there are generally two types of informational videos on youtube - the single talking head and the more-than-one talking head. (there's another that can be very informative, and that's the one-on-one interview)

I think the single talking head can be just as informative as reading an article or essay, with the advantage of being able to include video clips for emphasis. Of course it depends on the talent and integrity of the presenter and whether they deal in reliable information or are they grifting you. Jimmy Dore comes to mind as a particularly useless and dishonest single talking head.

I find more than one talking head to be often problematic. Largely ad-libbed conversations may be entertaining, but I find that the information content gets watered downed or drowned out.

Anyway, the video below is a single talking head, and I found it very informative.

Also, you have to get past what the video link looks like and the often over-the-top titles, expressions, etc. As I've mentioned before, youtube competition can be ferocious and many of these folks are running an income producing operation. (and I still don't understand how income works in youtube. I imagine there's a video out there that explains it.)

Ginni Thomas cried through Clarence's hearing, when Anita Hill testified against him. She married Thomas later and after 2 decades had the nerve to ask Hill to apologize to her husband.

I never expected anything sane from that idiot.

Probably the most dangerous woman in this country. 

well, this is a disturbing example of Thomas's lunacy

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/10/wont-someone-think-of-the-poor-prosecutors-committing-brady-violations-to-railroad-people-into-the-death-chamber

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday in Glossip v. Oklahoma, a death penalty case posing a question so bizarre that its very existence should serve as an indictment for capital punishment: Can courts force a state to execute a possibly innocent prisoner when the state itself doesn’t want to? Richard Glossip, the petitioner, argues that prosecutors concealed key evidence and allowed false testimony at his trial, securing a wrongful conviction. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner F. Drummond agrees, supporting Glossip’s quest for a new trial. But the far-right Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled against him, and attempted to insulate its ruling from SCOTUS review by asserting that state law bars any further appeals. Now the Supreme Court must decide whether the lower court successfully thwarted federal reversal—and if not, whether Glossip deserves a new trial that complies with the Constitution.

[…]

One strange feature of Glossip is that everyone agrees Richard Glossip did not personally kill the victim, Barry Van Treese. It was, rather, Justin Sneed who killed Van Treese. Sneed then struck a deal with prosecutors to avoid a death sentence by testifying that Glossip ordered him to carry out the murder. Sneed’s testimony was central to the state’s case against Glossip, and prosecutors sought to prove he could be trusted. At one point, the lead prosecutor, Connie Smothermon, asked Sneed if he took medication; he told the jury he was once prescribed lithium for a “cold” but “never seen no psychiatrist or anything.”

Here’s the problem: Contemporaneous notes, uncovered years later, reflect prosecutors’ knowledge that Sneed was lying. These notes, taken by Smothermon, state that Sneed was “on lithium” and under the care of a “Dr. Trumpet.” The prison psychiatrist who treated Sneed was named “Dr. Trombka.” Glossip’s lawyers think Smothermon was referring to this doctor. They believe these notes show that Smothermon and her co-counsel, Gary Ackley, knew Dr. Trombka treated Sneed with lithium for a psychiatric disorder—but refused to share this information with Glossip.

These omissions are no small matter. The due process clause requires prosecutors to turn over potentially favorable evidence to the defense, and compels them to correct false testimony. Smothermon and Ackley did neither. If they had, Glossip’s attorneys might have undermined Sneed’s credibility by proving that he lied on the stand. They may have more persuasively painted him as the lone killer, too, since Trombka believed Sneed was capable of violent “manic episodes.” Because prosecutors chose to stay silent, Glossip’s attorneys could not make the strongest case for their client.

Yet during Wednesday’s arguments, Thomas sought to recast Smothermon and Ackley as innocent victims of a smear campaign. He immediately asked Seth Waxman, Glossip’s lawyer: “Did you at any point get a statement from either one of the prosecutors?” Waxman told him that he did, in fact, get a sworn statement from Ackley, and that Smothermon was interviewed by an independent counsel appointed by Drummond. So yes: Both prosecutors provided statements. Yet Thomas persisted as if they hadn’t. “It would seem that because not only their reputations are being impugned, but they are central to this case—it would seem that an interview of these two prosecutors would be central.” Waxman protested that, again, both prosecutors were given an opportunity to tell their side of the story. And again, Thomas refused to accept it: “They suggest,” the justice said, “that they were not sought out and given an opportunity to give detailed accounts of what those notes meant.”

In truth, Smothermon and Ackley have had ample opportunity to say their piece. Oklahoma Attorney General Drummond commissioned a thorough probe that included interviews with both prosecutors. Yet when Paul Clement—who represents Drummond—continued defending Glossip, Thomas made the same baseless accusation. “Shouldn’t these two prosecutors—it seems as though their reputations are being impugned,” Thomas told Clement, “and according to them, they did not receive an opportunity to explain in depth.” Clement responded that “that’s hard to square with the record here.” He pointed out that, on top of Drummond’s probe, the Oklahoma Legislature commissioned its own probe of the case, during which Smothermon and Ackley were interviewed.

Thomas then pivoted to minimizing the prosecutors’ misconduct, alternately dismissing the notes as inscrutable and crediting Smothermon’s “explanation” of their irrelevance. Clement explained that “the most plausible inference” is that the notes reveal unconstitutional concealment of evidence. Thomas pivoted back to his false claim that Glossip’s lawyers never spoke to the prosecutors, saying of Smothermon: “Her point is that you didn’t ask her, that you didn’t have an in-depth conversation with her about it. You’re drawing it from the note, which she thinks is inadequate information.”

This back-and-forth dragged on, with the justice refusing to accept reality. “Why wouldn’t they be interviewed?” he asked Clement again. “Why don’t we have materials from them other than in an amicus brief in this case?” Clement could only restate the fact: “Well, with respect, Justice Thomas,” he said, “you do have materials from them.” Thomas just wouldn’t hear it: “What are we to do with the point that they make that they were frozen out of the process?” he asked. An exasperated Clement only continued pointing the justice toward the prosecutors’ own statements.

Words fail.  Seems as though there have been other cases lately too where the prosecutors agree that the conviction was wrong, but others (Missouri attorney general? these judges) want to go forward with imprisonment or even death penalty.  Emojis fail too.  And death penalty is a blot on our country.

And in today's corrupt SCOTUS news, it just stayed an order from Virginia that prevented the state from canceling voter registrations at this late date in clear violation of the NVRA (I believe that it specifically is section 8).  The US and plaintiffs had shown that US citizens were being removed pursuant to this program as it depended upon, at least in part, obsolete citizenship data. 

Steve said:

And in today's corrupt SCOTUS news, it just stayed an order from Virginia that prevented the state from canceling voter registrations at this late date in clear violation of the NVRA (I believe that it specifically is section 8).  The US and plaintiffs had shown that US citizens were being removed pursuant to this program as it depended upon, at least in part, obsolete citizenship data. 

this was ridiculous. Youngkin started this effort exactly 90 days before the election, in order to challenge a law that says you can't do this kind crap within 90 days of an election.

The R's are trying to rig this election 11 ways from Sunday.