The SCOTUS Thread

[HARK!]

17.)

The issue: The case concerns the authority of a federal district court to issue a transport order to the warden of a state-run prison for transportation of a state prisoner involved in a federal

'In the US system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state's detention of a prisoner is valid. A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee ... before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful. A habeas petition proceeds as a civil action against the State agent (usually a warden) who holds the defendant in custody.'<ref>Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, 'Habeas Corpus,' accessed April 5, 2021 habeas corpus proceeding.

Shoop v. Twyford

Shoop v. Twyford - SCOTUS

 

[HARK!]

18.)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
UNITED STATES v. TAYLOR
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20–1459. Argued December 7, 2021—Decided June 21, 2022
For his participation in an unsuccessful robbery during which his accom-
plice shot a man, respondent Justin Taylor faced charges of violating
the Hobbs Act, 18 U. S. C. §1951(a), and of committing a “crime of vio-
lence” under §924(c). The Hobbs Act makes it a federal crime to com-
mit, attempt to commit, or conspire to commit a robbery with an inter-
state component. §1951(a). Section 924(c) authorizes enhanced
punishments for those who use a firearm in connection with a “crime
of violence” as defined in either §924(c)(3)(A)—known as the elements
clause—or §924(c)(3)(B)—known as th e residual clause. Before the
District Court, the government argued that Taylor’s Hobbs Act offense
qualified as a “crime of violence” under §924(c). Taylor ultimately
pleaded guilty to one count each of violating the Hobbs Act and §924(c).
The District Court sentenced Taylor to 30 years in federal prison—a
decade more than the maximum sentence for his Hobbs Act conviction
alone. Taylor later filed a federal habeas petition focused on his
§924(c) conviction, which was predicated on his admission that he had
committed both conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and at-
tempted Hobbs Act robbery. Taylor argued neither Hobbes Act offense
qualified as a “crime of violence ” for purposes of §924(c) after United
States v. Davis, 588 U. S. ___. In Davis, this Court held that
§924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague.

United States v. Taylor - SCOTUS

 

[HARK!]

19.)

• The issue: The case concerns state workers' compensation laws and intergovernmental immunity. Click here to learn more about the case's background.

The question presented: "Whether a state workers’ compensation law that applies exclusively to federal contract workers who perform services at a specified federal facility is barred by principles of intergovernmental immunity, or is instead authorized by 40 U.S.C. 3172(a), which permits the application of state workers’ compensation laws to federal facilities “in the same way and to the same extent as if the premises were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State.”

United States v. Washington


United States v. Washington- SCOTUS

 

[KCfromNC]

Depressingly predictable.

Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs | CNN Politics

Woo-hoo, the Satanic Temple now gets federal funding for their schools!

I mean, sure, another approach is to actually follow the 1st Amendment, but if everyone else is getting in on the graft, might as well ride it for all its worth no matter the consequences.

 

[HARK!]

I mean, sure, another approach is to actually follow the 1st Amendment,

You mean religious freedom?

 

[Desk trauma]

Woo-hoo, the Satanic Temple now gets federal funding for their schools!.

That would clearly get struck down under the long standing principle of different because reasons.

 

[KCfromNC]

You mean religious freedom?

Nope, was thinking more of the establishment clause bit.
But hey, no worries, that amendment doesn't matter any more when there's tax money to feed to churches at the direction of this GOP activist court.

 

[HARK!]

Nope, was thinking more of the establishment clause bit.
But hey, no worries, that amendment doesn't matter any more when there's tax money to feed to churches at the direction of this GOP activist court.

Why should Christian children's parents have to pay for school twice, to protect them from secular propaganda?

 

[HARK!]

Supreme Court rejects Bayer bid to stop Roundup lawsuits

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has rejected Bayer‘s appeal to shut down thousands of lawsuits claiming that its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer.

Supreme Court rejects Bayer bid to stop Roundup lawsuits

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why should Christian children's parents have to pay for school twice, to protect them from secular propaganda?

They're not paying for school twice. Presumably, you're talking about taxes that everybody pays.

Why should I pay taxes to send someone else's children to a school that would not let me either attend or employ me?

 

[HARK!]

They're not paying for school twice.

Yes they are.

Why should I pay taxes to send someone else's children to a school that would not let me either attend or employ me?

For the same reason that I pay taxes for schools that I may not attend, nor would they employ me.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes they are.

They are not. They pay whatever taxes they owe; there is no payment for schooling tacked on as a line item. [Indeed, the specific nature of this case is that they live in an area that has no public school. So they are certainly not paying for a school that doesn't exist.]

For the same reason that I pay taxes for schools that I may not attend, nor would they employ me.

Public schools cannot discriminate in either attendance or hiring.

 

[HARK!]

They are not. They pay whatever taxes they owe; there is no payment for schooling tacked on as a line item. [Indeed, the specific nature of this case is that they live in an area that has no public school. So they are certainly not paying for a school that doesn't exist

The bulk of school taxes are the bulk of one's property taxes. Yes, it is often broken down as a line item on one's property tax bill.

Why should I forced to pay for a school that teaches material that would be the antithesis of the values that I'm trying to instill in my child. Why should I be forced to send my child to a school that teaches my child lies; because once I have paid for that school; I no longer have the funds to send my child to a school where he will be taught the truth?

Public schools cannot discriminate in either attendance or hiring.

Yes they can. If I taught the truth in public schools; I'd be escorted out the door.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why should Christian children's parents have to pay for school twice, to protect them from secular propaganda?

Because simply saying one believes in a religion doesn't give one special privileges. That's a pretty clear violation of the establishment clause.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why should I forced to pay for a school that teaches material that would be the antithesis of the values that I'm trying to instill in my child.

An interesting argument against funneling tax dollars into religious organizations. Wonder how the court missed it?

 

[essentialsaltes]

The bulk of school taxes are the bulk of one's property taxes. Yes, it is often broken down as a line item on one's property tax bill.

Even so. Every property owner pays that. They are not paying tuition for their child's schooling. They're paying their taxes like everybody else.

Yes they can. If I taught the truth in public schools; I'd be escorted out the door.

"Violators of one's terms of employment" are not a protected class for anti-discrimination laws. Nor should they be.

 

[HARK!]

Because simply saying one believes in a religion doesn't give one special privileges. That's a pretty clear violation of the establishment clause.

Believing what one believes, whether it be in revisionist history, or the rejection the scientific evidence that the universe was created, does not give science denying Authoritarians any special rights. I reject allowing them to brainwash my child; and I don't approve of financing their scheme.

 

[HARK!]

An interesting argument against funneling tax dollars into religious organizations. Wonder how the court missed it?

What is being taught in public schools is that of a religious organization. I don't believe what they believe. In a just society this would work both ways.

 

[HARK!]

Even so. Every property owner pays that. They are not paying tuition for their child's schooling. They're paying their taxes like everybody else.

Property owners didn't have an opportunity to attend public schools?

 

[HARK!]

"Violators of one's terms of employment" are not a protected class for anti-discrimination laws. Nor should they be.

So why should one have a problem with that; if that employer does not support his agenda?