“Thomas also recites the prosecution’s narrative — including gruesome details of the crime — as if it were fact, ignoring the numerous expert witnesses and two federal courts that have said the injury that caused the girl’s death couldn’t possibly have happened at the time and in the manner the state of Arizona claims.”
MORE AT:
Washington Post
Opinion In death row case, the Supreme Court says guilt is now beside the point
June 1, 2022, 3:04 PM EDT
***
"Alito, in his draft opinion, invokes “eminent common-law authorities,” including Hale, to show how abortion was viewed historically not as a right, but as a criminal act. “Two treatises by Sir Matthew Hale likewise described abortion of a quick child who died in the womb as a ‘great crime’ and a ‘great misprision,’ Alito wrote."
Alito couldn’t find anything in the Constitution so he reached back to before there was a United States to:
"Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century jurist who conceived the notion that husbands can’t be prosecuted for raping their wives, who sentenced women to death as “witches,” and whose misogyny stood out even in his time."
MORE AT:
Draft Overturning Roe v. Wade Quotes Infamous Witch Trial Judge With Long-Discredited Ideas on Rape
Justice Alito’s leaked opinion cites Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century jurist who conceived the notion that husbands can’t be prosecuted for raping their wives, who sentenced women to death as “witches,” and whose misogyny stood out even in his time.
Ken Armstrong May 6, 1:50 p.m. EDT
***
THEY’RE JUST IN THE BULLPEN WARMING UP
The House & Senate can make any gun control law and not be bothered by opposition of gun & ammo companies. The Supreme Court will strike it down.
I worked near the North Philly Amtrak Station & lived near the Philly Art Museum. When I worked the 3 to 11 shift I got on the subway to go home. If Philly allowed guns on the subway I never would have used the subway.
Alito wants concealed carry guns in subways.
Alito is not just extremist right wing. He’s also an Alice in Wonderland gun-wing-nut:
“2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.”
FROM:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
If the case poised to overturn Roe v. Wade is the court’s expected summer blockbuster, its sleeper hit is expected to increase access to guns at perhaps the worst time: when active shooter incidents are up dramatically; school shootings have reached an all-time high; and recent polling shows “huge support” for a variety of gun restrictions. Specifically, before June’s end (and potentially the same week that it topples Roe), the court could invalidate a New York law restricting the concealed carrying of handguns on the ground that it violates the Second Amendment.
That law is nothing new; it’s literally been on New York’s books for more than a century (and well before any women won the right to vote). What’s changed is the court itself. In the 14 years since Justice Antonin Scalia’s self-described “legacy opinion,” District of Columbia v. Heller, held the Second Amendment protects individuals’ rights to own guns for self-defense, the court’s center collapsed; three devoted, young conservatives joined its ranks; and other, veteran conservatives have moved out from Scalia’s shadow to map their imagined America onto their purported originalism.
And that’s how this Court agreed to hear a challenge to New York’s 111-year-old law. The case was brought by two residents of Rensselaer County, where “153,000 people [are] spread over 955 square miles,” as their lawyer explained. Even Rensselaer County’s biggest city has under 50,000 residents and lies more than 150 miles from New York City. The residents, Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, are not exactly deprived of gun rights. The men do have licenses to carry concealed handguns outside their homes for hunting and target practice and self-defense in areas not “frequented by the general public;” one of their licenses also allows him to carry concealed for self-defense while traveling to and from work. Both, however, were denied unrestricted licenses to carry concealed because, neither of them established “proper cause,” or “a non-speculative need for armed self-defense in all public places.”
Yet despite their distance from New York City, all Justice Alito could talk about at oral argument was urban danger—and “ordinary” Americans’ fear. For all his fixation with “history and tradition” in undoing Roe, Alito leapt back to the future of present-day New York in the name of gun rights. Unlike Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, both Big Apple natives, Alito apparently has not lived or worked in New York. Rather, as we learned during his 2006 confirmation process, he was raised in Trenton, New Jersey, graduated from Princeton and then Yale Law School, and then began his public service career, first in the Department of Justice and then as a federal judge in his home state. Still, insisting that Manhattan’s “ordinary, hard-working, [and] law-abiding” workers are clamoring to carry concealed handguns, Alito asked New York’s lawyer:
So I want you to think about people like this, people who work late at night in Manhattan, it might be somebody who cleans offices, it might be a doorman at an apartment, it might be a nurse or an orderly, it might be somebody who washes dishes. None of these people has a criminal record. They’re all law-abiding citizens. They get off work around midnight, maybe even after midnight. They have to commute home by subway, maybe by bus. When they arrive at the subway station or the bus stop, they have to walk some distance through a high-crime area, and they apply for a license, and they say: Look, nobody has told -- has said I am going to mug you next Thursday. However, there have been a lot of muggings in this area, and I am scared to death. They do not get licenses, is that right?
. . . .
How is that consistent with the core right to self-defense, which is protected by the Second Amendment?
That lawyer sounded stunned. The answer to rising gun violence, she suggested, especially in public transit, isn’t removing limits on gun licenses. Indeed, “the idea of proliferating arms on the subway is precisely, I think, what terrifies a great many people ...[P]roliferating guns in a populated area where there is law enforcement jeopardizes law enforcement because when they come, they now can’t tell who’s shooting, and the ... shooting proliferates and accelerates.”
MORE AT:
Why Supreme Court speculation about ‘ordinary’ folks endangers us all
Some justices’ assumptions about guns and pregnancy may shape the term’s biggest cases while revealing how little they know about who we are, what we need, and what we should have to endure.
June 1, 2022, 3:04 PM EDT
By Lisa Rubin
No comments:
Post a Comment
You can add your voice to this blog by posting a comment.