**** you. The Republican don’t care about babies once they are born. They do everything to cut funding poor/needed to help. Adoption? So women are just baby factories now? I guess we are headed to the Handmaid’s Tale society.
There's literally hundreds of thousands of kids up for adoption today, not sure how a few more will help. Before the whole "So you're for killing babies!?" No, I just don't think an embryo is a baby any more than a sperm is a baby.
Here are some other cases that were decided based on 14th Amendment protections. Loving v Virginia-Interracial marriage Griswold v Connecticut -The right for married couples to use contraception Eisenstadt v. Baird - unmarried people having the right to contraception Lawrence v Texas - made homosexual sodomy illegal. However, 10 other states has laws on the books banning sodomy between heterosexual and homosexual. Martin v.Zihelr and Zysk v Zysk- used the Lawrence case as foundation for striking down a law in Virginia making consensual sex between unmarried people illegal. Obergfell v Hodges - Gay marriage There are a lot of others. All of these are under threat to have states decide whether any of these should be legal in each respective state.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/16/now-justice-barrett-uses-noncitizen-instead-of-alien/ Now Justice Barrett Uses "Noncitizen" Instead of "Alien" by Josh Blackman 5.16.2022 10:27 AM Justice Barrett's majority opinion in Patel v. Garland begins: Congress has comprehensively detailed the rules by which noncitizens may enter and live in the United States. When noncitizens violate those rules, Congress has provided procedures for their removal. At the same time, there is room for mercy: Congress has given the Attorney General power to grant relief from removal in certain circumstances. Yet, Congress does not use the word "noncitizen." The immigration laws use the word "alien." Now, Justice Barrett has joined Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Sotomayor, the Solicitor General, and others, with swapping out "alien" for "noncitizen." The lower courts--including the Eleventh Circuit--continue to squabble over this issue. Fortunately, Justice Barrett did not expurgate the word "alien" from quotations, like Justice Sotomayor did. Section 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) renders inadmissible an "alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under" state or federal law. In Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 589 U. S. ___ (2020), we had to decide whether subparagraph (C)—which bars review of "any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed" certain criminal offenses—prohibits review of how a legal standard applies to undisputed facts. Meanwhile, Justice Gorsuch's dissent that ruled for Patel, which was joined by the Court's progressive, used the word "alien" repeatedly.
The Supreme Court Just Said That Evidence of Innocence Is Not Enough Last December, the Supreme Court gathered to hear oral arguments in Shinn v. Ramirez, a case that could mean life or death for Barry Jones, who sits on death row in Arizona for the rape and murder of his girlfriend’s 4-year-old daughter, Rachel. In 2018, a federal court overturned Jones’ conviction, concluding that he had failed to receive effective counsel, a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. Had that happened, a federal judge ruled, “there is a reasonable probability that his jury would not have convicted him of any of the crimes with which he was charged and previously convicted.” After losing in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Arizona’s attorney general appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. During those oral arguments, state prosecutors repeatedly argued that “innocence isn’t enough” of a reason to throw out Jones’ conviction. On Monday morning, by a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court concurred: Barry Jones’ innocence is not enough to keep him off of death row. The state of Arizona can still kill Jones, even if there exists a preponderance of evidence that he committed no crime. The crime for which Jones was convicted is horrific. The little girl, Rachel, died from peritonitis, the result of a rupture in her small intestine that the state of Arizona claimed came from repeated physical and sexual abuse. But Jones’s lawyers never questioned the physical evidence that led to his conviction. As Liliana Segura, an investigative reporter for The Intercept, pointed out in an exhaustive piece last year: “Had Jones’s lawyers been up to the task, there was plenty they could have done to defend their client. They could have pointed out that the lead detective, who examined Rachel at the hospital, didn’t bother to investigate how or when the child sustained her fatal injury — or consider a single other suspect aside from Jones. They could have called a medical expert to show that there was no real evidence that the child had been raped. Most crucially, Jones’s lawyers could have called a pathologist to challenge the state’s theory of the crime, which rested on a narrow timeframe during which Jones had supposedly assaulted Rachel the day before her death. Medical experts now say that Rachel’s abdominal injury could not have become fatal so quickly.” At the time of his trial, Jones was appointed a lawyer by the state—a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed to all criminal defendants under the Sixth Amendment. If a defendant argues, after conviction, that they failed to receive adequate counsel they are appointed new legal representation. If the new lawyer also provides ineffective counsel, a federal habeas appeal allows them to argue that their post-conviction lawyer was ineffective. In effect, Jones argued that he received ineffective counsel not once—but twice. And the fault lies not with him, but rather with his lawyers who were appointed by the state of Arizona. By allowing him to introduce evidence of his innocence, a federal court would be, in effect, rectifying the mistakes made not just by his lawyers, but by the state responsible for appointing them. In a 2012 case, Martinez v. Ryan, the Supreme Court ruled that a convicted defendant “is not at fault for any failure to bring a trial-ineffectiveness claim in state court”—and thus opened the door to appeals like the one brought by Jones. On Monday the court gutted the precedent established by Martinez. In its decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court ruled that a federal court, “may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state-court record based on the ineffective assistance of state postconviction counsel.” In short, a convicted defendant, like Jones, can be held responsible and kept in prison if his state-appointed lawyer provided ineffective counsel for his appeal. It creates a truly bizarre, even Orwellian situation. How can a defendant argue ineffective counsel if they can’t point to specific examples of that ineffective counsel? And how else can they do that other than by introducing new evidence not presented at trial, which would have likely acquitted them? Thomas is saying, in effect, that a petitioner has to rely on the record of a trial in which they were ineffectively defended—and their actual innocence is of secondary importance. Thomas justifies the court’s decision by arguing that a federal review imposes “significant costs” on state criminal justice systems that includes potentially overriding “the State’s sovereign power to enforce ‘societal norms through criminal law.’” One might argue that housing a man who committed no actual crime on Arizona’s death row “imposes significant costs.” One might even further argue that executing an innocent man imposes far greater societal costs—not just to the legitimacy of the criminal justice system, but more acutely to the man whose life the state ended. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in her dissent, “The Court’s decision will leave many people who were convicted in violation of the Sixth Amendment to face incarceration or even execution without any meaningful chance to vindicate their right to counsel.” She called the ruling “perverse” and “illogical,” which doesn’t really do justice to its utter obscenity.. SCOTUS’ decision will allow for an innocent man to, potentially, be killed by the state for largely procedural reasons. That Arizona even appealed the federal court’s decision in this case is truly depraved. The state could have sought a new trial or released Jones. Instead, state prosecutors took their appeal to the Supreme Court where, if they won, it risked putting a man to death when substantial doubt exists about his guilt. What societal objective is furthered by such an outcome? Why would any prosecutor risk killing an innocent man? How does that benefit the cause of justice? But far worse is that the Supreme Court is willing to ratify Arizona’s impaired judgment. As Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, said to me, part of the problem is that “the court’s conservative majority does not fully accept the idea that there is a right to effective assistance of counsel.” “One could argue that there is a cost for the lack of finality from new claims brought up on habeas. Every prisoner can just file a new motion to say ‘I was denied effective assistance.’” said Zasloff. “So do we as a society want to pay that price to make sure innocent people don’t get killed? Not for these guys. So much for the right to life.” The same court that appears poised to overturn Roe v. Wade in order to protect innocents before they are born seems to lose interest when it comes to innocents later in life. Yet, for close Supreme Court-watchers, the decision is hardly surprising. Thirty years ago, the court issued a ruling that a death row inmate presenting belated evidence of innocence is not necessarily entitled to have a federal court hear their claims. Justice Antonin Scalia went even further, noting “there is no basis, tradition, or even in contemporary practice for finding that in the Constitution the right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after a conviction.” In an angry dissent, Judge Harry Blackmun described the majority’s reasoning as "perilously close to simple murder." With their decision on Monday, the conservative members of the court have ratified Scalia’s depraved thinking. Simple logic would suggest that proving one’s innocence is enough to ensure that a wrongful conviction is overturned and an innocent man or woman is set free. Such moments are the emotional high points of countless Hollywood movies. It’s the way most Americans would like to imagine our justice system should work. But with the current Supreme Court and its increasing refusal to abide by long-standing legal precedents, basic societal norms, and simple moral constructs, the reality is something else altogether. For the highest court in the land, the state of Arizona killing an innocent man is not a perversion of the criminal justice system, but rather emblematic of its smooth functioning. https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-s...irez-that-evidence-of-innocence-is-not-enough
the NYT version Supreme Court Limits Inmates’ Challenges Based on Bad Legal Help Splitting 6 to 3, the justices ruled that federal courts may not hold evidentiary hearings in suits from state prisoners claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/23/us/politics/supreme-court-ineffective-counsel.html and SCOTUSblog analysis: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/...-ineffective-counsel-claims-in-federal-court/
https://thehill.com/policy/3507216-supreme-court-votes-to-temporarily-block-texas-social-media-law/ Supreme Court temporarily blocks Texas social media law by Rebecca Klar 05/31/22 5:00 PM ET A Texas law that would bar social media companies from taking action on hate speech and disinformation was temporarily blocked Tuesday in a rare 5-4 Supreme Court ruling. Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer ruled in favor of tech industry groups looking to block the law, with Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Elena Kagan dissenting from the ruling majority. The decision is a win for tech industry groups pushing back on laws coming from Republican-controlled state legislatures that seek to put barriers on social media companies' ability to moderate content. A case on the law itself may wind up back before the Supreme Court as it makes its way through challenges in lower courts. But Tuesday’s decision means the law — which critics have said could lead to a more dangerous internet — will remain blocked for now in Texas, reversing a decision from a court of appeals earlier this month. This is a developing story coverage at WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/31/supreme-court-texas-social-media-law/ and elsewhere: https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/31/extraordinary-relief-and-existing-law/
...Clarence Thomas rides to the rescue again. ...I think I liked him better when he DIDN'T give any opinions and just nodded and went along with whatever Alito would say...
I remember hearing about the previous ruling that even evidence of innocence isn't enough to overturn a conviction if it was brought forward after conviction. The reasoning was that as long as due process was followed in the original trial new evidence wasn't a matter of appeal. It's that sort of reasoning why I'm certain that the US has executed someone who actually was innocent since the modern death penalty was reinstated and very likely will execute other people who are actually innocent.
Five things to know about the Texas social media law https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3508799-five-things-to-know-about-the-texas-social-media-law/
Fascinating case and simply refreshing to see the justices break their normal affiliations. Almost gives one hope.
I think Texas allows for evidence of innocence to be enough. Not sure how is codified... probably statutory. States are allowed to go further in protecting rights beyond the national constitutional baseline.
In ideologically scrambled ruling, court rejects double-jeopardy claim from man who was prosecuted twice https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/...ardy-claim-from-man-who-was-prosecuted-twice/ excerpt: “Denezpi’s single act led to separate prosecutions for violations of a tribal ordinance and a federal statute,” Barrett wrote. “Because the Tribe and the Federal Government are distinct sovereigns, those ‘offence'{s}’ are not ‘the same.’ Denezpi’s second prosecution therefore did not offend the Double Jeopardy Clause.” more at the link
Dave Schuler with a good, short piece http://theglitteringeye.com/neither-a-suicide-pact-nor-an-etch-a-sketch/ Neither a Suicide Pact Nor an Etch-a-Sketch by Dave Schuler June 13, 2022 Do you remember those cartoons that used to (still do as far as I know) appear in the newspaper and magazines? “How many things can you find wrong with this picture?” That’s what Ruth Marcus’s recent Washington Post column, the latest mourning prospective Supreme Court decisions, in this instance a decision on 2nd Amendment issues, reminds me of: The Constitution is not a suicide pact, Justice Robert H. Jackson wisely observed in a 1949 free-speech case. As the Supreme Court prepares to decide its first gun rights case in a dozen years, an updated version of Jackson’s motto should be: The Constitution is not a mass suicide pact. That is, the protections of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, need not be interpreted in a way that forecloses reasonable limits and regulations. On that score, it’s worth quoting Jackson’s admonition in full: “There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.” There have been few times in the history of the Supreme Court when its doctrinaire logic was more in need of tempering and practical wisdom. Any day now, the court is poised to decide New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a challenge to a New York law requiring that people seeking licenses to carry a concealed handgun show “proper cause,” defined as “a special need for self-protection.” I do not understand the legal intricacies of the decision the justices have before them and I doubt that Ms. Marcus does, either. I presume it’s the vibe of the thing that bothers her. Here’s my point. In a common law system judges are empowered to interpret the law according to precedent and legal principles and in some cases the law simply does not apply to the situation. In the absence of applicable precedent the judges are not empowered to decide what the policy should be and rule accordingly. That smacks of a civil code system. In a civil code legal system (as prevails in almost all of the world) the law always applies to every situation and the judge’s job is to determine how. Under our legal system while it’s true that the Constitution is not a suicide pact it’s not an Etch-a-Sketch, either. Making policy is the responsibility of the elected branches of government—the executive and legislative. If the legislative branch refuses or can’t enact the necessary law, it’s not up to the Supreme Court to do it for them. The law doesn’t get enacted. I think that’s a good part of the blinding rage that so many progressives have about the Supreme Court today. Over the last 50 years they’ve become accustomed to the Supreme Court doing for them what they couldn’t accomplish through the legislature and, now that the ideology of the Supreme Court has shifted, they feel that something they own has been taken away from them. There’s something we should all keep in mind. Under our legal system when the courts routinely cast away precedent and legal principle in the interest of accomplishing a social good, it erodes the rule of law. Casting that as some part of the democratic process is mistaken. It’s mob rule.
Supreme Court Rejects Maine’s Ban on Aid to Religious Schools The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Maine may not exclude religious schools from a state tuition program. The decision, from a court that has grown exceptionally receptive to claims from religious people and groups in a variety of settings, was the latest in a series of rulings requiring the government to aid religious institutions on the same terms as other private organizations. The vote was 6 to 3, with the court’s three liberal justices in dissent. The case, Carson v. Makin, No. 20-1088, arose from an unusual program in Maine, which requires rural communities without public secondary schools to arrange for their young residents’ educations in one of two ways. They can sign contracts with nearby public schools, or they can pay tuition at a private school chosen by parents so long as it is, in the words of a state law, “a nonsectarian school in accordance with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Two families in Maine that send or want to send their children to religious schools challenged the law, saying it violated their right to freely exercise their faith. Well done. Exactly right. The Anti-freedom of religion leftists will be disappointed. But they shouldn't be.
I don't mind allowing vouchers/state tuition reimbursements for religious schools as long as the school adapts the minimum standards that public schools have to adhere to. There are a lot of communities where the religious schools could have higher quality of education. The religious school should adopt curriculum standards set by the state, even if it includes theory of evolution or sex ed. The students at the religious school should be required to take state-wide standardized tests. Also the school should be banned from making student enrollment and faculty employment discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, and religion (if similar protections are afforded under state law for public institutions). It'll be interesting to see the impact of this ruling on universities. Private universities may start asking for more tuition assistance from the state.
