The outpouring begins at the top of the hour. Follow the live-blog at SCOTUSblog, here.
UPDATE 1: Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment. Spider-Man case... affirmed. 6-3. The dissenters are Alito, with Roberts and Thomas. The Court adheres to a precedent that said "a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se."
UPDATE 2: Los Angeles v. Patel, Sotomayor writes, affirming the 9th Circuit, which protected a 4th amendment right relating to hotel registries."This is a strong decision for Fourth Amendment lovers." Here's the PDF of the opinion. It's a 5-4 opinion, a liberal/conservative split, with Justice Kennedy joining the liberals.
UPDATE 3: Kingsley v. Hendrickson. Split 5-4, in the same pattern as in Patel. The 7th Circuit is reversed. "Kingsley was waiting [in a Wisconsin jail] for trial on a drug charge when he got into a dispute with jail officers, who handcuffed him, forcibly removed him from his cell, and later used a taser on him. Kingsley then filed a lawsuit, alleging that jail officials had used excessive force. The question before the Court was what standard of review should apply to an excessive force claim by a pretrial detainee.... The Court ruled in favor of Kingsley, holding that courts should apply an objective test – the same Fourth Amendment excessive force test that applies to people who have not been arrested."
UPDATE: Horne v. Department of Agriculture. "Fifth Amendment requires the government to pay just compensation when it takes personal property, just as when it takes real property." That's the last opinion of, so none of the hotly anticipated cases today.
June 22, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
Drum roll, please...
Time for last minute predictions!
You readers really need the suspense?
"The envelope, please"
1. The express words of a statute don't mean what they plainly mean.
2. Of course the drafters of 1868 Fourteenth Amendment placed the right for homosexual marriage. Unlike our just-announced King v. Burwell decision, this right is plainly in the amendment.
The raisin-taking case was not of the "hotly anticipated"? From my POV is speaks more to the overreach of government than SSM.
Raisin farmers win 9-0!!
Blogger gspencer said...
You readers really need the suspense?
"The envelope, please"
1. The express words of a statute don't mean what they plainly mean.
Personally, I like "don't believe your lying eyes."
On Horne, The Gov't got a little wrath of the Grapes.
The Court's taking jurisprudence is a hot mess and today's decision won't help that (although it doesn't seem to make things worse, either).
Neither the raisin case nor the 4th hotel register case are unimportant.
And who is not pleased to learn that if a jail officer subjectively feels that his jail will run a lot better if he stomps you in front of the other inmates, breaking both legs, and leaving you crawling to try to get away from his kicks into your abdomen, you are indeed allowed to challenge his actions as objectively, if not subjectively, unreasonable? Especially if you are a pretrial detainee, and thus innocent before the law?
I quote from Kingsley v Hendrickson:
The question before us is whether, to prove an excessive force claim, a pretrial detainee must show that the officers were subjectively aware that their use of force was unreasonable, or only that the officers’ use of that force was objectively unreasonable. We conclude that the latter standard is the correct one.
The liberal four plus Kennedy.
I know these cases are not the ones so many are waiting for, but for me, it was a pretty good SC day, with the exception that I find it rather appalling that any SC justice couldn't sign on to Breyer's opinion.
To those who feel that all EVIL in the world arises from liberals, I would recommend taking a tranquilizer and reading Kingsley before Thursday's proceedings.
Horne is a huge case. Turning point in government takings precedence. May be turning point to lead the way to reducing Commerce Clause overreach. Much more important case that Obamacare.
I agree with gspencer, unfortunately, the Court will say "established by the state" does not mean "established by the state." It will also say that the Reconstruction Congress, led by their extreme Puritan faith and motivated by the horrible price paid in the war to free black slaves, really meant to adopt homosexual marriage into the 14th Amendment. They just forgot to write anyting in there about it.
This Court has no concern about its own legitimacy and its limited place in the government of and by the people. It has no problems with being the tyranny.
The Obamacare case should be 9-0 in favor of the Plaintiffs with a one sentence opinion - Congress should amend the statute if it meant something different than what it wrote.
The homosexual mariage case should also be 9-0 in favor of the Plaintiffs with a one sentence opinion. The regulation of and definition of marriage is not one of the ennumerated powers of the federal government and the federal judiciairy: therefore, has no jurisdiction over these cases.
Trgically, several large trees will be felled to make the paper to contain the sophistry that is coming to justify this tyranny. "Slouching Toward Bethlehem" we go.
Saw the raisin case in person being presented at the court. Never knew about this policy of the government. Came out of the court wanting the raisin farmer to win. Glad he did.
great Unknown said...
The raisin-taking case was not of the "hotly anticipated"? From my POV is speaks more to the overreach of government than SSM.
6/22/15, 9:34 AM
The Drill SGT said...
Raisin farmers win 9-0!!
6/22/15, 9:34 AM
If this is so it really has the potential to be huge. Could this start a series of reversals of New Deal decisions?
UPDATE 2: Los Angeles v. Patel, Sotomayor writes, affirming the 9th Circuit, which protected a 4th amendment right relating to hotel registries."This is a strong decision for Fourth Amendment lovers." Here's the PDF of the opinion. It's a 5-4 opinion, a liberal/conservative split, with Justice Kennedy joining the liberals."
Perhaps I am reading too much in to this but how do hotel registries information differ from cell phone, landline and internet searches and usage information differ conceptually from hotel registries in the context of underlying purpose of the LA ordinance?
So, now that the SC has ruled that you can't take someone's raisins without compensation, should we raise the issue of civil asset seizure where government can take peoples' money and property without charging them with a crime? It sure seems like a slam dunk case if you read the actual text of the Constitution.
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment 5
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. Amendment 14
Of course, it has been a long time since the actual text of the Constitution meant much to the Supreme Court. The Constitution only means what at least 5 SC justices say it means regardless of the actual text.
Raisins are poisonous to dogs, so it's an anti-dog ruling.
In the raisin case, I think Thomas wrote separately just to get in this line:
"To the extent that the Committee is not taking the raisins 'for public use,' having the Court of Appeals calculate 'just compensation' in this case would be a fruitless exercise."
That Patel family sure own a lot of hotels. Immigrants with some hustle.
A bigger deal than I thought a minute ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patel
Post a Comment