Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

My Hovercraft Is Full Of Moose

Monday, June 18th, 2018

When you see a phrase like “Moose vs. Hovercraft,” you think it’s probably about some ironic iPhone game you can back on Kickstarter. (That, or a SyFy movie, in which case it would be Giant Moose vs. Megahovercraft.) But today the phrase pops up in relation to a case the Supreme Court has agreed to take up. Bonus: For the second time.

An Alaska hunter who wants to use his hovercraft to hunt moose persuaded the Supreme Court to take up his case Monday for the second time.

After its last hearing on John Sturgeon’s case, the Supreme Court found that the Ninth Circuit failed to recognize the unique conditions of Alaska that usually make the state the exception, not the rule, when it comes to Nation Park Service regulations.

On remand from the Supreme Court, however, the Ninth Circuit again ruled against Sturgeon, finding that the U.S. government had authority to regulate Sturgeon’s use of a hovercraft on the federally protected Nation River.

Sturgeon’s latest petition for certiorari, which he filed this past January,

Asks whether the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act prohibits the National Park Service from exercising regulatory control over state, tribal or private land that overlaps with the National Park System in Alaska.

The Supreme Court decision for the first round of Sturgeon vs. Frost can be found here. An excerpt:

In 2007, John Sturgeon was piloting his hovercraft over a stretch of the Nation River that flows through the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve, a conservation system unit in Alaska that is managed by the National Park Service. Alaska law permits the use of hovercraft. National Park Service regulations do not. See 36 CFR §2.17(e). Park Service rangers approached Sturgeon, informing him that hovercraft were prohibited within the preserve under Park Service regulations. Sturgeon protested that Park Service regulations did not apply because the river was owned by the State of Alaska. The rangers ordered Sturgeon to re move his hovercraft from the preserve, and he complied. Sturgeon later filed suit against the Park Service in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief permitting him to operate his hovercraft within the boundaries of the Yukon-Charley. Alaska intervened in support of Sturgeon.

The Supremes remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit saying they had misinterpreted the regulation in question:

Looking at ANILCA both as a whole and with respect to Section 103(c), the Act contemplates the possibility that all the land within the boundaries of conservation system units in Alaska may be treated differently from federally managed preservation areas across the country, and that “non-public” lands within the boundaries of those units may be treated differently from “public” lands within the unit. Under the Ninth Circuit’s reading of Section 103(c), however, the former is not an option, and the latter would require contorted and counterintuitive measures.

The Ninth basically responded as they are usually wont to do. “Nah-uh, you’re not the boss of me! I do what I want! Screw you, moose-hunting hovercraft guy!” (I might be paraphrasing just a tad here.)

Having been ignored the first time, expect the Supreme Court to strike down upon the ninth with great vengeance and furious anger issue a more strongly-worded decision. The only question is whether it will be a narrowly-based textual decision, or a broader decision about federal regulation of state and private lands.

(Hat tip for my headline swipe.)

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Regulation, Supreme Court | No Comments »

Freedom of Religion 1, Social Justice Warriors 0

Tuesday, June 5th, 2018

In a broadly-shared 7-2 opinion on narrow technical grounds, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the christian baker in the Masterpiece Cakeshop “gay wedding cake” case.

Let’s look at the text of the decision itself:

That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.

Snip.

For these reasons, the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint. The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520. Factors relevant to the assessment of governmental neutrality include “the historical background of the decision under challenge, the specific series of events leading to the enactment or official policy in question, and the legislative or administrative history, including contemporaneous statements made by members of the decisionmaking body.” Id., at 540. In view of these factors, the record here demonstrates that the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of his religious beliefs. The Commission gave “every appearance,” id., at 545, of adjudicating his religious objection based on a negative normative “evaluation of the particular justification” for his objection and the religious grounds for it, id., at 537, but government has no role in expressing or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips’ conscience-based objection is legitimate or illegitimate. The inference here is thus that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause. The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that requirement, and the Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same.

In short, liberals might have eked out a win in this case if only they hadn’t displayed their usual naked contempt for Christian believers.

It’s also gratifying to see that constitutionally enumerated rights can still, at this late date, trump those “unenumerated rights” (read Obergefell) plucked from the thin air of penumbras and emanations that are so near and dear to left-wing legal theorist’s hearts.

Ann Althouse also points out Justice Thomas’ opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment:

The Colorado Court of Appeals was wrong to conclude that Phillips’ conduct was not expressive because a rea­sonable observer would think he is merely complying with Colorado’s public-accommodations law. This argument would justify any law that compelled protected speech. And, this Court has never accepted it. From the beginning, this Court’s compelled-speech precedents have re­jected arguments that “would resolve every issue of power in favor of those in authority.” Barnette, 319 U. S., at 636…

States cannot punish protected speech because some group finds it offensive, hurtful, stigmatic, unreasonable, or undignified. “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

And that, of course, is the entire point of the law. Tolerance is not enough. Liberals demand sanction and wish to criminalize dissent to their demands. You will be forced to approve of our lifestyle. You will be made to care. The law exists entirely to force Christians to bow to will of anti-Christian liberals.

Every knee must bend.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Social Justice Warriors, Supreme Court | 1 Comment »

LinkSwarm for June 1, 2018

Friday, June 1st, 2018

We told liberals they wouldn’t like the new rules being applied to them, but they didn’t listen. Liberals get Roseanne Barr fired, conervatives get Samantha Bee’s sponsors to pull out. (Disclaimer: I didn’t watch either of their shows.)

  • How #NeverTrump came to be a lifestyle choice: “These people aren’t operating from principle. The are operating from pique. Trump’s mere presence offends them because they just know they are his social and intellectual superiors.”
  • President Donald Trump has stopped apologizing and started innovating:

    Indeed, how many of these widely accepted (sometimes downright cherished) assumptions can one man challenge (disrupt) in such a brief period of time? The answer is plenty. He does it by questioning what often goes unquestioned in Washington, D.C. He simply asks “Why?” Why help fund a Shiite crescent in the Middle East? Why send tax dollars to a terrorist-friendly PLO? Why support anti-American programs at the U.N.? Why a “One China” policy? Why placate deadbeat NATO partners? Why pay premium prices for the F-35 and a new Air Force One? Why force nuns to provide birth-control coverage? Why tolerate sanctuary cities and a porous border?

  • British man goes to jail for telling the truth about Muslim rape gangs.
  • What it’s like to live on the border with Mexico:

    Five years ago, my husband and I bought a house in the emptiest county in America. We went there because the night sky is so dark, you can walk in the high desert by starlight and cast a shadow, so dark you can see distant galaxies and the zodiacal light. There are three types of people in our rural area: amateur astronomers, ranchers, and illegal aliens.

    If you climb the mountains behind our house and look south, you look into Mexico. If you climb those mountains to the top, you are on one of the major drug trafficking routes into America. If you stay in the desert at the foot of the mountains, you are in rattlesnake country—the greatest biodiversity of rattlers in America, and the night path of illegal aliens.

    It is not even a secret that the 60 miles between the border and Interstate 10 are treated as a no man’s land. We live and vote and pay taxes in America, but the government acts as if we are beyond the defensible perimeter of the country. Border Patrol is everywhere, but even with President Trump, they are just going through the circular motions of catch and release.

    They have high tech listening stations in the mountains, trucks equipped with radar on the back roads. They know when drugs are moving through, know regular drop-offs, are adept at finding caches. But if they can’t secure the border, they can’t keep the families that live here safe—and they don’t even try.

    We are the deplorables. All of my rancher neighbors have guns. Most are Evangelicals. To Democrats and open-borders Republicans, we are throwaway people. The Other. Disposable.

    The reason I am not naming names, even place names, is that these are my neighbors’ stories, not mine, and my neighbors—farmers, cowboys, and ranching families, strong, resourceful, tough people—my neighbors are wary and they are weary. They fear retribution by the drug runners and coyotes who bring the illegals across, because they have seen it happen.

    All of my neighbors have had encounters with illegals. Every single family. Everyone knows dozens of families whose homes have been broken into and worse—loved ones tied up, kidnapped, threatened, shot, permanently crippled by a hit and run attack, when they made too much of a fuss to authorities.

    (Hat tip: Director Blue.)

  • Get woke, go broke, college edition:

    Evergreen State College is eliminating dozens of staff positions as it struggles to cope with plummeting enrollment in the wake of the protests that engulfed campus last year.

    John Carmichael, the chief of staff and secretary to the Evergreen State College Board of Trustees, announced in a memo to staff and faculty members on Tuesday that the school has already cut 24 faculty lines and eliminated 19 vacant staff positions, and warned that up to 20 additional staff members could soon be laid off.

    “Over the past several days, 20 staff members have been notified that they are at risk for layoff,” Carmichael wrote. “These layoffs, although necessary to stabilize the college’s budget, represent a profound loss felt by many.”

    The staffing cuts, which include not renewing contracts for several adjunct faculty members, come shortly after the college revealed that it would be cutting $5.9 million from the budget in anticipation of a shortfall in applications of up to 20 percent.

  • Republicans have been using the Congressional Review Act to kill some of the worst regulations from the final days of the Obama Administration.
  • Came to Iraqi to join the Islamic State? Iraqi courts have no sympathy for you. Even if you’re a woman.
  • You may think you’re rich, but how much money does it take before an investment banker thinks you’re rich? Short answer: $25 million.

    Twenty-five million dollars in investable wealth. The kind of money you could afford to see dip into the red for a quarter or three, maybe even a year or two, without breaking a sweat. With $25 million, maybe, just maybe, you’re starting to be rich.

    Because in this era of hyper-wealth and hyper-inequality, that is simply where rich begins—a ticket, in truth, to the first, lowly rung of rich. For most of the planet, $25 million represents unfathomable wealth. For elite private bankers, it buys their basic service.

    Call it economy-class rich. Business class? That’s $100 million. First class? $200 million. Private-jet rich? Try $1 billion.

    I grew up thinking that rich was owning a two-story house, so I’ve got it made. Top of the world, ma! (Hat tip: Director Blue.)

  • Texas Supreme Court strikes down short-term rental rule. The only surprise this time is that it was San Antonio rather than Austin making the stupid law.
  • A small pro-life victory.
  • A-10s to get new wings. Good. (Hat tip: Stephen Green at Instapundit.)
  • Did Tranny Traitor Bradley Manning just threaten to off himself?
  • WisCon gonna WisCon. (Previously.)
  • Solo underperforms. I’m not sure there are any larger lessons to be drawn. For what it’s worth, I saw Deadpool 2 last Saturday, and recommend it to anyone who enjoyed the original Deadpool.
  • Related: Fans call for Common sense Star Wars control.

    • Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
    Posted in Border Control, Democrats, Jihad, Media Watch, Military, Social Justice Warriors, Supreme Court | No Comments »

    The Mask Slips

    Wednesday, March 28th, 2018

    Finally!

    Finally, a high ranking Democrat finally has the guts to say what lies near and dear to the cockles of the vast majority of their party’s heart: “Repeal the Second Amendment.”

    Thanks you, John Paul Stevens, for not just, at long last, admitting what Democrats have long-believed, but doing so out-loud and in mixed company!

    There, was that so hard? All you had to do was tell the truth.

    Democrats want to repeal part of the Bill of Rights so they can forcibly disarm law-abiding Americans.

    Both left and right have known this for a long time, but Democrats felt compelled to lie about it for trivial reasons like “losing elections.”

    To thine own self be true!

    Additional reactions:

    Ann Althouse:

    Usually, advocates of gun control tend to give assurances that they’re not out to repeal the Second Amendment. A forthright demand for a repeal of the Second Amendment would wreck those assurances and elevate the pro-gun side, which could credibly intensify its rhetoric with reality-based anxiety that they are coming to take away your constitutional rights. If they can take away your Second Amendment rights — if the Bill of Rights is on the chopping block — they may come for your freedom of religion next, they can take away your freedom of speech, you right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures — whatever they like, whatever they think stands in their way.

    Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

    The op-ed comes across as whining over his Heller defeat and the implication that the Constitution should be treated as a historical relic (Stevens’ term). That certainly explains some of his votes on the Supreme Court, perhaps most notably in Kelo, although courts had unfortunately paved that road long before. At least in this case, Stevens suggests using a valid constitutional process to erode individual rights rather than a Supreme Court decision that effectively rewrites the Constitution to expand federal power at the expense of liberty. That may have more to do with Stevens’ lack of a seat on the court at this time, though.

    So how likely will a repeal effort be? Maybe if Democrats really start pushing it — as they clearly would love to see it happen — it might get, oh, 40% of the House to vote for it, far short of what’s necessary to send it to the states. The only states likely to ratify such an amendment proposal are those whose gun-control regulations have utterly failed to stop violence in their jurisdictions, as was the case in Washington DC when Heller was decided in 2008.

    However, such an effort would certainly clarify the choices for voters outside of those jurisdictions in national elections, and Democrats would be lucky to comprise 40% of Congress if they tried to follow Stevens’ advice. Don’t expect too many of them to climb on Stevens’ bandwagon, especially as rickety as it is in this essay.

    And some tweets:

    Tags:, , , , ,
    Posted in Guns, Supreme Court | No Comments »

    Trump Nominates Don Willett to 5th Circuit

    Thursday, September 28th, 2017

    Good news!

    AUSTIN — President Trump on Thursday will nominate two conservatives from Texas with compelling personal stories to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to a senior administrative official. Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett was cited by Trump as a potential U.S. Supreme court pick during his presidential campaign. Dallas appellate lawyer James Ho is a former Texas solicitor general who has argued cases before state and federal courts.

    Senator Ted Cruz approves of both nominations:

    For over a decade on the Texas Supreme Court, Don Willett has proven himself to be a jurist of the highest order. His service on the court was simply one more step in a career of public service, from the Texas Governor Office, to the White House, to the Department of Justice, to the Texas Attorney General’s office. Every step along the way, Justice Willett has stood out as man of intellect and principle, and I am excited to see what he will accomplish on the Fifth Circuit.

    Jim Ho has proven throughout his accomplished career that he is a passionate defender of the Constitution and the rule of law. Jim has served with distinction in all three branches of government, including as a law clerk to the great Justice Clarence Thomas on the United States Supreme Court, an official at the Department of Justice, and a chief counsel here in the United States Senate. Jim also succeeded me as Solicitor General of Texas, where he argued some of this country’s toughest cases before its highest courts. I am confident that he will be a stellar jurist and an intellectual force on the court.

    In addition to recognizing Willett as a fine judge, maybe Trump recognized a fellow tweet master…

    Tags:, , , ,
    Posted in Supreme Court, Texas | 1 Comment »

    Federal Court Lifts Texas Voter ID Law Injunction

    Wednesday, September 6th, 2017

    The Texas Voter ID law is back in force.

    By a 2-1 vote, a Fifth Circuit federal appeals court panel in New Orleans stayed a previously issued injunction against the law.

    In the six-page majority opinion, Circuit Judges Jerry Smith and Jennifer Walker Elrod suggested that the state made a strong case.

    “The State has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits,” reads a joint order from Smith and Elrod. “SB 5 allows voters without qualifying photo ID to cast regular ballots by executing a declaration that they face a reasonable impediment to obtaining qualifying photo ID. This declaration is made under the penalty of perjury.

    “The State has made a strong showing that this reasonable-impediment procedure remedies plaintiffs’ alleged harm and thus forecloses plaintiffs’ injunctive relief.”

    Democrats, of course, hate the Texas voting ID law because it prevents the voter fraud they rely on, which is the same reason they seek to block President Donald Trump’s election panel from reviewing state voting rolls.

    The next level of appeal for Democrats seeking a stay of the law would be to seek an en banc hearing of the entire Fifth Circuit. Since Republican-appointed judges have a six seat majority on the Fifth Circuit, success at that level is unlikely, with any ruling setting the stage for a possible Supreme Court appeal. At this stage, it is unlikely (thought not impossible) that the Supreme Court would agree to hear the case in time for the 2018 midterm elections.

    Tags:, , , , , , ,
    Posted in Supreme Court, Texas | No Comments »

    Trump and Sessions Are Wrong on Civil Forfeiture

    Thursday, July 20th, 2017

    A commitment to constitutional due process is a bedrock of American civil society, and President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ efforts to increase federal use of civil asset forfeiture is deeply ill-considered.

    “[W]e hope to issue this week a new directive on asset forfeiture—especially for drug traffickers,” Sessions said. “With care and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures. No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime. Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate as is sharing with our partners.”

    The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment and for more information about the directive.

    Asset forfeiture became a prized hammer in law enforcement’s tool chest in the 1980s, when the government was struggling to combat organized drug cartels. Law enforcement groups say the laws allow them to disrupt drug trafficking operations by targeting their proceeds—cars, cash, and guns.

    However, the practice has exploded since then, and civil liberties groups and political advocacy organizations, both liberal and conservative, say the perverse profit incentives and lack of due process for property owners lead to far more average citizens having their property seized than cartel bosses.

    The Justice Department plays a huge role in asset forfeiture through its Equitable Sharing Program, which allows state and local police to have their forfeiture cases “adopted” by the federal government. The feds take over the case, and the seized money is put into the equitable sharing pool. In return, the department gets up to 80 percent of those funds back. The equitable sharing program distributes hundreds of millions of dollars a year to police departments around the country.

    The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that citizens shall not “be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” while the Fourteenth Amendment states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” making official the incorporation of federal due process rights at the state level. (These rights were already largely observed for free citizens under common law, with the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly extending them for freed slaves.)

    There have been numerous documented abuses of civil asset forfeiture laws, with people having money and property seized despite having committed no crime. The Supreme Court has recently started limiting the scope of civil asset forfeiture, with Justice Clarence Thomas being especially critical:

    This system — where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use — has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses. According to one nationally publicized report, for example, police in the town of Tenaha, Texas, regularly seized the property of out-of-town drivers passing through and collaborated with the district attorney to coerce them into signing waivers of their property rights.

    In one case, local officials threatened to file unsubstantiated felony charges against a Latino driver and his girlfriend and to place their children in foster care unless they signed a waiver. In another, they seized a black plant worker’s car and all his property (including cash he planned to use for dental work), jailed him for a night, forced him to sign away his property, and then released him on the side of the road without a phone or money. He was forced to walk to a Wal-Mart, where he borrowed a stranger’s phone to call his mother, who had to rent a car to pick him up.

    These forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings. Perversely, these same groups are often the most burdened by forfeiture. They are more likely to use cash than alternative forms of payment, like credit cards, which may be less susceptible to forfeiture. And they are more likely to suffer in their daily lives while they litigate for the return of a critical item of property, such as a car or a home.

    And Connecticut just passed a law making it clear that civil asset forfeiture can only occur after conviction of a crime.

    Texas state senator Konni Burton (R-Colleyville), who has been critical of previous Trump statements on civil forfeiture, had this to say:

    I am extremely disappointed in the decision by Attorney General Jeff Sessions to rescind certain policies implemented by his predecessors which limited the federal scope and use of civil asset forfeiture. While the A.G. has added some new safeguards against abuse, he is once again allowing law enforcement to potentially circumvent stricter state forfeiture laws and utilize weaker federal laws at the expense of the rights of the individual. Sessions’ announcement only underscores the dire necessity of making real change at the state and federal level by passing meaningful protections for the people into law, and not simply relying on prosecutorial discretion and rule-making, which changes from one administration to the next. Let me be clear: there is no bigger private property rights issue in America today than our current, egregious system of civil asset forfeiture. We must pass real reforms through the legislative process here in Texas and at the federal level as well. As we’ve seen today, the peoples’ property is not truly secure until we do.

    If President Trump and Attorney General Sessions were planning to increase civil asset forfeiture only for convicted felons and only for the proceeds from their crimes, I’d have no problem. Alas, nothing in their statements indicates adherence to such constraints.

    Like free speech and civilian firearms ownership, private property rights and substantive due process are both fundamental American constitutional rights, and “But drug lords!” is a pretty lousy argument for suspending those rights.

    Tags:, , , , , ,
    Posted in Crime, Supreme Court | No Comments »

    Supreme Court Lifts Stay of Trump Travel Ban

    Monday, June 26th, 2017

    The Supreme Court mostly set aside the lower court stay of president Trump’s travel ban:

    The Supreme Court agreed Monday to allow a limited version of President Trump’s ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries to take effect and will consider in the fall the president’s broad powers in immigration matters in a case that raises fundamental issues of national security and religious discrimination.

    The court made an important exception: It said the ban “may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

    In the unsigned opinion, the court said that a foreign national who wants to visit or live with a family member would have such a relationship, and so would students from the designated countries — Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — who were admitted to a U.S. university.

    The court said it would hear the case when it reconvenes in October. But it also indicated in the ruling that things may change dramatically by then. It asked the parties to address whether the case would be moot by the time it hears it; the ban is supposed to be a temporary one while the government reviews its vetting procedures.

    My quick reading is that they thought the lower courts overstepped their bounds, but issued a split-the-difference ruling in hopes that the entire issue would work itself out politically and spare them from having to wade into the dense thicket of potential political and constitutional issues.

    All the Justices voted for a stay in part, while Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch arguing further for a stay in full.

    Full test of the decision is here.

    Tags:, , ,
    Posted in Border Control, Jihad, Supreme Court | 3 Comments »

    There Is No Hate Speech. Only Zuul.

    Monday, June 19th, 2017

    Today the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed what conservatives, libertarians and honest liberals have been arguing for some time now: when it comes to the First Amendment, there’s no “hate speech” exemption:

    From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:

    [The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

    Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:

    A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

    And the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions.

    This is a great blow to Social Justice Warriors looking to limit or eliminate the speech of their political opponents as “hate speech.”

    Thank God for the First Amendment, or we might be looking at situations like Canada’s, where you can be fined for using unapproved pronouns.

    Tags:, , , , ,
    Posted in Social Justice Warriors, Supreme Court | 1 Comment »

    LinkSwarm for April 7, 2017

    Friday, April 7th, 2017

    Welcome to another Friday LinkSwarm!

    I’m still not wild about President Trump’s decision to strike a Syrian airfield with cruise missiles last night, but the decision makes more sense if you look at it less of a tool to make Bashar Assad mend his ways than as a warning shot across the bows of Ali Khamenei, Kim Jong-Un and Xi Jinping, the latter of whom President Trump just happened to be meeting with while the missiles were hitting Shayrat.

    Now some links:

  • Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed to the Supreme Court today. How’d that Nuclear Option work out for you in the long run, Harry Reid?
  • The Obama/Kerry policy on Syrian chemical disarmament has been such an astounding failure that even Polifact has been forced to admit it.
  • Here’s a really interesting precinct-by-precinct map of the 2016 presidential election, along with analysis of changes from previous maps.

  • Susan Rice has changed her story twice. (Hat tip: Director Blue.)
  • Intelligence agencies are stonewalling congressional information requests on unmasking scandal.
  • Even Rolling Stone has noticed Putin derangement syndrome.
  • Russia recognizes West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, while recognizing East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.
  • Russia has banned this image:

  • Jobless claims “are hovering near the lowest level since the early 1970s.” Now the trick is to produce enough sustained growth to get the Obama-discouraged long-term unemployed back into the workforce…
  • Dissecting the mainstream media’s dishonest response to every jihad attack.
  • “Conniving, spineless, duplicitous, misleading, double-crossing—Chuck Schumer is a fitting exemplar for the modern Democratic Party.” (Hat tip: Director Blue.)
  • Intersectionality is a religion. (Hat tip: Ed Driscoll at Instapundit.)
  • Marines test polymers to cut weight.
  • College student who was once in pictures with Bill Clinton busted for prostitution. What are the odds? (Hat tip: Instapundit.)
  • Justified shooting, unjustified indictment.
  • Mike Pence’s rules for not being alone with other women are probably less about preventing adultery than to prevent him from being framed and smeared by feminists.
  • “Ethicist” Pete Singer: Hey, let’s rape the retarded! It’s not like they’re real human beings…
  • The Royal Canadian Mounted Police can intercept your cell phone conversations.
  • Is Google prejudiced against ex-military employees?
  • ESPN is losing money hand-over-fist, but they’re still going shove the liberal culture war down your throat.
  • Oh the huge manatees…are doing just fine.
  • Hope you don’t need to use the stretch of I-35 near San Antonio this weekend: The Texas Department of Transportation is shutting it down for four days.
  • Don Rickles, RIP. With a great segment with him on the Tonight Show with Frank Sinatra.

    • Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
    Posted in Democrats, Elections, Foreign Policy, Jihad, Media Watch, Military, Obama Scandals, Social Justice Warriors, Supreme Court, Texas | No Comments »

    « Older Entries
    Newer Entries »