The thing is nobody ever does shit beyond having surprised Pikachu face. “Dude, can you believe the People’s Court is still murdering dissidents???” No man, it’s completely unbelievable–maybe we’re one New York Times article away from them realizing their mistake. Vote harder and deliver us 60 DeeAnne Feensteens and then vote harderer.
5 Likes
Replacing ten Republicans in the Senate with a bunch of Feinsteins would actually accomplish a lot.
The issue at hand in that case is whether it is constitutional to revoke the right to own a gun from people who have not been convicted of anything, but have received a restraining order.
The dude is extremely unsympathetic and the biggest 2A nutter is gonna agree this guy should not have a gun, but at the time he was charged with illegally processing firearms, he was not a convicted criminal and the only court order against him was civil.
The case, United States v. Rahimi, No. 22-915, concerns Mr. Rahimi, a drug dealer in Texas with a history of armed violence, according to court records. In 2019, Mr. Rahimi assaulted his girlfriend and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone, leading her to obtain a restraining order. The order suspended Mr. Rahimi’s handgun license and prohibited him from possessing firearms.
He threatened a different woman with a gun, leading to charges of assault with a deadly weapon. Then, in the space of two months, he opened fire in public five times.
Upset about a social media post from someone to whom he had sold drugs, for instance, he shot an AR-15 rifle into his former client’s home. When a fast-food restaurant declined a friend’s credit card, he fired several bullets into the air.
From the record before us, Rahimi did not fall into any such group at the time he was charged with violating § 922(g)(8), so the “strong presumption” that he remained among “the people” protected by the amendment holds. When he was charged, Rahimi was subject to an agreed domestic violence restraining order that was entered in a civil proceeding. That alone does not suffice to remove him from the political community within the amendment’s scope. And, while he was suspected of other criminal conduct at the time, Rahimi was not a convicted felon or otherwise subject to another “longstanding prohibition on the possession of firearms” that would have excluded him.
It’s an interesting case because there is one outcome that is obviously better for society, especially women, and it is unanimously agreed upon that the defendant is a piece of shit, but I can understand the legal justification they may use to overturn it. Given the existence of an individual right to bear arms as affirmed in Heller, the idea of nullifying a constitutional right with a civil order is legally questionable enough for this court.
Gun control is DEAD in USA#1 while the court is 6-3 (until PACexit 
).
4 Likes
Thanks I obviously didn’t know the details well enough.
1 Like
I like a lot of things about you including that you will “back pedal” when you get new information. I wish more people were like that.
5 Likes
Jfc.
2 Likes
More like it would just keep awful things from being passed for a little while
Honestly the reason I think they reverse here 100% of the time is why would they bother taking the case if they weren’t going to? Just let the 5th circuit ruling stand and move on to the next batshit crazy thing you’re gonna do. The libs don’t even have enough votes to force a cert grant so at least one of the right wingers was on board with taking this thing. Otoh I could be completely wrong and out $50 in a year, anything is possible with these guys.
1 Like
A lot of things won’t get filibustered and will pass if there are 50 votes for them. (If Dems also control the House.)
1 Like
This was a really great episode. I think there’s a lot more ambiguity in this case (in the specific Colorado law, more generally) than a lot of people do, and I was wondering if 5-4 would just steamroll over the other side’s arguments as if they didn’t exist. But I thought they did a great job recognizing the two sides in tension and articulating how they’d balance those two sides (and still end up ruling against the “website designer”).
A+ episode.
2 Likes
And how big was the loophole?
Lol 5-4 isn’t for the “nuanced” listener.
Wasn’t that already the opinion?
It’s a big club and still, you most certainly are not in it.
An array of high rolling lawyers with cases before the Supreme Court paid money to one of Justice Clarence Thomas’s top aides through Venmo. The Guardian reports that these lawyers have done everything from successfully arguing against affirmative action, to leading the charge to limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to, well, protect the environment.
These top lawyers appeared to be paying for exclusive access to a Christmas party hosted by the Supreme Court justice, according to the payment descriptions on Venmo. The former aide, Rajan Vasisht, received seven payments in November and December of 2019, The Guardian reports; each Venmo payment was listed with descriptors like “CT Christmas Party,” or “Thomas Christmas party.”
The payments could have well been for anything; none of the implicated parties responded to The Guardian ’s questions or request for comments.
One of the lawyers paying the Thomas aide was Patrick Strawbridge, a partner at Consovoy McCarthy, who successfully helped overturn affirmative action. Another was Kate Todd, former White House deputy counsel under twice-impeached, twice-indicted, and liable for sexual abuse former President Donald Trump. Yet another party-going lawyer was Elbert Lin, West Virginia’s former solicitor general, who was very influential in a Supreme Court case that limited the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. And that’s just a taste of who all attended.
Look man, can’t a guy have friends and invite those friends to a Christmas party? So what if those friends just so happen to be the lawyers (but also probably former clerks) who will argue cases in front of me. Why let work get in the way of friendship?
Lol did these dumbasses really not turn off the ridiculous “public by default” Venmo payments setting?
I could totally see high priced lawyers getting sucked into that. They’re so dumb about technology, and no one would EVER assume such a ridiculous setting as to make payment information public for any reason, much less by default. I couldn’t believe it when I first saw it.
Just lol at this being the default setting. How many people have gotten burned by this
over the years? 100k? I didn’t use Venmo for years because of this. I wondered what other stupid decisions they had made.
3 Likes
If these are public Venmo transactions, why don’t they tell us the amounts that are being paid?
That is standard - you don’t see amounts, just who paid who and the message they sent.
I’ll be damned. I would have bet money that it displayed the amounts, too. And I use Venmo regularly.
I think it did in the beginning. But I’m guessing they turned that off because obviously it’s a batshit crazy idea to show any personal money transfers whatsoever to the FUCKING GENERAL PUBLIC.
So in a sense I don’t blame the dumbass lawyers for never even imagining that such a thing could exist.
Millennials though are just like eh, privacy shmrivacy - Venmo is slightly more convenient than Paypal.
Like what is one good use case why I would want everyone on earth to know I sent my buddy $60 at 3am?
1 Like