Justice Thomas Calls Out The Supreme Court For Not Believing In The Second Amendment – The Libertarian Republic


By Thomas Phippen

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had stern words for his colleagues when theCourt declined to hear a case challenging Californias handgun laws, saying that the jurists do not understand the importance of self-defense.

The case, supported by the National Rifle Association, involves San Diego resident Edward Peruta, who challenged his countys refusal to grant him permission to carry a concealed firearm outside of his home.

For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous, Thomaswroteafter most members of the court declined to hear the California case.

But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it, Thomassaid.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Courts newest member, joined Thomas statement on the courts refusal to hear the case, calling the decision by the 9th circuit onPeruta v. San Diegoindefensible.

A case needs to be approved by at least four justices in order to get on the Supreme Courts docket.

The Second Amendments core purpose further supports the conclusion that the right to bear arms extends to public carry, Thomas wrote. Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively.

The San Diego County Sheriffs department has very narrow restrictions for concealed carry permits. Only those who can prove they have a regular need for self-defense against a specific threat are granted concealed permits.

The whole point of the Sheriffs policy is to confine concealed-carry licenses to a very narrow subset of law-abiding residents, Perutas attorneys wrote. And because California law prohibits openly carrying a handgun outside the home, the result is that the typical law-abiding resident cannot bear a handgun for self-defense outside the home at all.

Clarence ThomasEdward PerutaNeil GorsuchPeruta v. San DiegoSecond AmendmentSupreme Court

See more here:

Justice Thomas Calls Out The Supreme Court For Not Believing In The Second Amendment – The Libertarian Republic

New Mexico ethics commission remains work in progress – Washington Times

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) – The New Mexico legislature approved the creation of an independent ethics commission during this years legislative session, but there are many unanswered questions about how it will work.

Lawmakers approved the framework for an ethics commission during the 60-day session that ended in March, with the assumption that its powers and procedures would defined later.

Some groups are pushing lawmakers to start talking about the details in interim legislative committee hearings this summer and fall, the Albuquerque Journal reported (http://bit.ly/2rGbkUv ) Thursday.

It is unlikely the Courts, Corrections and Justice Committee will recommend legislation when it meets in coming months, said Rep. Gail Chasey, D-Albuquerque.

I think we will probably spend some time on it, Chasey said. But the ethics commission doesnt go to voters until next year.

As currently proposed, the seven-member independent ethics commission would review complaints against elected officials and certain government employees.

Other details about the commissions day-to-day operations would have to be determined by the Legislature in 2019, if statewide voters approve a constitutional amendment creating the commission in the November 2018 general election.

The commission would have the ability to subpoena records and compel witness testimony, Sen. Jeff Steinborn, D-Las Cruces, said.

But it is not clear whether the commission would be able to initiate investigations after receiving complaints or if it could do so on its own.

New Mexico is one of eight states without an ethics commission, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

See original here:

New Mexico ethics commission remains work in progress – Washington Times

Questions – Euthanasia – June 6-7, 2017 – Rasmussen Reports

See Article See Toplines See Crosstabs Platinum Page

National Survey of 1,000 American Adults

Conducted May June 6-7, 2017 By Rasmussen Reports

1*A case now in the courts in Massachusetts could make that state the next one to allow voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide for those who are terminally ill. Do you favor or oppose a law allowing voluntary euthanasia in the state where you live?

2*Would you ever consider voluntary euthanasia for yourself or for a member of your immediate family in the event of a terminal illness and to alleviate suffering?

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

Read more:

Questions – Euthanasia – June 6-7, 2017 – Rasmussen Reports

Was Loving v. Virginia Really About Love? – The Atlantic

Interracial marriage is at a historic high. According to a recent Pew Research Center report, couples with different racial backgrounds made up one in six new marriages in 2015a stark change from previous eras when even looking at someone across the color line with a hint of romance could be a matter of life or death. This radical shift is largely attributed to the Supreme Courts decision in Loving v. Virginia, which marks its 50th anniversary on June 12. In Loving, the Court struck down state laws banning interracial marriage, holding that such restrictions are unconstitutional.

Loving is widely praised as a case about law ceding to the power of love in the face of astonishing harassment and bigotry endured by interracial couples. The redemptive trope coming out of the Loving decision that love conquers all has also influenced other social movements, such as those leading to Obergefell v. Hodgesthe 2015 Supreme Court decision recognizing same-sex marriage.

The 1967 Loving decision therefore is often celebrated as an affirmation of love that made America a better and more progressive society. Theres just one problem.

Love is not what the case was really about.

At issue in the Loving decision was Virginias Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited interracial marriage and paved the way for a series of state laws designed to prevent racial mixing. Anti-miscegenation laws had been common in Virginia for centuries. But what often becomes lost in discussions about Loving is that this particular act was signed into law on the very same day the Virginia legislature passed another act that allowed the state to forcibly sterilize people with disabilities, including people labeled with derogatory medical terms such as feebleminded. Questions concerning the lawfulness of Virginias forced sterilization law led to another landmark Supreme Court decision in 1927, Buck v. Bell, in which the Court upheld its legality with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes infamously declaring three generations of imbeciles are enough.

‘Yall Sent Me to Washington at an Interesting Time’

Virginias dual passage of racial integrity and sterilization acts in 1924 highlighted another concern held by lawmakers beyond that of interracial love: the perception that the white race was in danger of being weakened by inferior traits and that laws were needed to promote good racial hygiene and public health.

As legal historian Paul Lombardo notes, these acts showed how marriage restrictions and forced sterilization were deeply connected strategies for promoting a broader agenda of eugenicsa popular social and political standpoint in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that used science, law, and medicine to weed out groups with what were taken to be hereditary defects (disability, poverty, criminality, etc.). Eugenics had been practiced in many nations across the globe and took various forms, including immigration restrictions, incarceration, and the genocides seen during the Holocaust. Supporters worked to encourage the demographic growth of so-called superior people of a predictable class, race, and ethnicity.

Eugenics was a failed political attempt at giving intellectual and scientific cover to what was nothing more than the gross racism and stigmatization of disadvantaged groups. The Supreme Court, in Loving, euphemistically referred to the time when these laws were passed as a period of extreme nativism which followed the end of the First World War. Tied closely to this nativism was the eugenic rearticulation of old entrenched biases that were not only skeptical of foreigners, but deeply invested in controlling reproduction as a means of preserving power for a particular slice of White America.

Within this context, it becomes clear that the issues involved in Loving extended beyond its current popular understanding as a tribute to romance. Indeed, for a case heralded for being about the boundless nature of love, there is surprisingly little discussion about this in the Loving decision apart from the appellants surname and rather dry assertions that marriage is a civil right. By contrast, consider this passage from the Courts opinion in Obergefell, which reflects Justice Anthony Kennedys tone throughout a decision that waxes poetically on loves virtues:

Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other.

The Loving decision instead responded to the eugenic aspect of Virginias Racial Integrity Act and how it was designed to prevent the perceived dilution of white racial purity. Rather than celebrating love, the Courts opinion states that laws against interracial marriage are unconstitutional because they are measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.

Understanding Loving v. Virginia from this perspective highlights exactly why it is important, 50 years later, to recognize the Courts decision in ways that go beyond affirming that love knows no racial boundaries. Loving v. Virginia continues to be relevant to modern discussions on racial intimacy, and speaks to contemporary social and political initiatives whose true purpose is often masked by distracting and disingenuous rhetoric. This can be seen in current government proposals aimed at banning travel from certain Muslim-majority countries, building a physical barrier on the southern border, revoking health care from millions of people, and decimating civil rights programs and social services that provide support for the most vulnerable. A robust understanding of Loving instructs us to peel back the superficial economic and political justifications for these contemporary proposals. This allows us to appreciate how they are often motivated by an eerily reminiscent Holmesian logic regarding who is weak and who is strong, who belongs and who doesnt, and who deserves to live and who should perish.

At its half-century mark, Loving v. Virginia should be celebrated for fostering multi-racial relationships that have brought joy to many families and made communities stronger. Yet, its also important to understand and appreciate its relevance to not only intimate relationships, but also relationships between government and those who are governed. Loving is a decision that implores us to reject the eugenic and supremacist remnants of a distant past and to pursue a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive society. That, in a nutshell, is what love is truly about.

Here is the original post:

Was Loving v. Virginia Really About Love? – The Atlantic

Amanda Bynes Regains Financial Independence From The Courts – The Inquisitr

During an extended time away from the spotlight, Amanda Bynes has been slowly making progress with her personal mental health struggles and involvement with the law. Amanda has been working on herself, dealing with improving her relationship with her parents and continuing her studies at fashion and design at the Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising in Irvine, California. In fact, shes been doing so well that the courts, who had previously placed Amandas financial affairs in conservatorship, restored control over her personal finances to her and her parents. Amandas attorney, Nyree Kolanjian, who worked as the conservatorship attorney, told People magazine that Amandas mother Lynn petitioned the courts for this move in October of 2016.

after providing a detailed accounting of the estate and accounting for every ependiture and receipt, Lynn petitioned the court to terminate the conservatorship of the estate. Then after several hearings and detailed presentations to the judge regarding her progress and plans moving forward, the court approved the petition and handed control over her estate back to Amanda and her parents to handle privately outside of the courts.

Apparently, Amanda and her parents relationship has improved drastically in the past four years. So much so that the courts based their decision not only on Amandas personal progress, but also that relationship. Kolanjian continued, based on Amandas progress and her great relationship with her parents, there was no longer a need for court supervision of Amandas money and she and her family can handle her financial affairs privately.

Amanda Bynes was once on Hollywoods hot list; a child actor since the age of 10, she grew up in the spotlight, helming high profile kids shows like The Amanda Show and All That. She was named to Teen Peoples 25 Hottest Stars Under 25 in 2006 and appeared to be on the rise. In 2007, Bynes had two critical and commercial successes: Hairspray, which went on to get a Grammy nod, and Sydney White.

After Hairspray 2 was canceled, Bynes sent out a mysterious tweet stating that I dont love acting anymore, so Ive stopped doing it. A few weeks later, she recanted and said that she was just taking some time off. After that, she started having numerous legal woes.

In 2012, Amanda Bynes was stopped by police for talking on her cell phone while driving. A month later, in April of 2012, she side-swiped a police car in West Hollywood. She was arrested and charged with driving under the influence for that incident. A scant five months later, she was charged for two hit and run incidents which were alleged to occur in April and August of 2012.

She was able to settle the hit and run charges out of court with an undisclosed financial settlement and had the DUI dropped as part of a plea bargain. Bynes got three years of probation for reckless driving when the case was settled in 2014. During this time, Amanda was arrested in New York for possession, reckless endangerment, and attempting to tamper with evidence as she threw a bong from her 36th-floor apartment. She was given a psychiatric evaluation before being processed, which eventually lead to the charges being dismissed. On July 22, 2013, Bynes was placed in an involuntary 72-hour psychiatric hold after she started a small fire in front of a strangers home in Thousand Oaks, California.

It was after this incident that her parents filed for conservatorship of Amanda and a judge agreed that their daughter had a lack of capacity to give informed consent.

Bynes received treatment at The Canyon in Malibu afterward and was released to her parents care in December of 2013. In 2014, she was placed in psychiatric care once again after making accusations that her father had sexually abused her. She later recanted these statements, saying that he had implanted a microchip in her brain that made her say that.

Since then, Amanda has been living away from the spotlight, surrounded by her close friends and family, working toward personal recovery. The removal of her finances from conservatorship is a milestone that shows how much progress the former child star has made in the past three years. With her recent announcement that she would like to pursue acting again, her parents remain hopeful that she is well on the road to a full recovery

[Featured Image by Peter Kramer/AP Images File]

Read more here:

Amanda Bynes Regains Financial Independence From The Courts – The Inquisitr

Civil Liberty Groups Decry North Carolina’s Restrictive Laws Push – NBCNews.com

Rachel Jordan protests outside the House gallery during a special session of the North Carolina General Assembly at the Legislative Building in Raleigh, Dec. 16, 2016. Ethan Hyman / AP

But civil liberty experts say North Carolina has been unique in the breadth and scope of what they call its restrictive legislation.

“North Carolina Republicans, I think its fair to say, have gone further than their counterparts in any other state in using their total control over state government to manipulate election rules in such a way as to advantage their own party,” says Zachary Roth, former national correspondent for MSNBC.com and author of “The Great Suppression: Voting Rights, Corporate Cash, and the Conservative Assault on Democracy.” “Weve seen that in a number of states, but North Carolina Republicans have been the most brazen and aggressive about it.”

Despite being rebuffed by the courts on legislation ranging from

Republicans still hold all the cards, said Bob Phillips, executive director of the nonpartisan group Common Cause North Carolina. These court decisions are not deterring them at all, theyre just pivoting.

With a supermajority in the legislature, Republicans can pass laws without a single Democratic vote. Because of this, substantial and consequential laws are being decided not on the assembly floor, but in the courtroom.

And as the state wages these lengthy court battles, the taxpayers are left footing this ever-rising bill.

As of November 2016, North Carolina Republican lawmakers had spent more than $10.5 million litigating controversial laws since coming to power in 2011,

Almost half that money $4.9 million went to defend the states sweeping voter law, which was overturned by a panel of federal of judges. On May 15, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the states appeal. Lawmakers spent an additional $3.7 million defending the redistricting plans that were also overturned by the courts.

As the legislature proposes

For those of us that live in the state, this is sad because thats money that might have gone to public education or other things that are important to the citizens of North Carolina, says Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. But the state legislature obviously doesnt seem to care. Theyre continuing to try and press their claims, or defend against their claims, and the cost just doesnt seem to be a factor.

Advocacy groups worry that North Carolina could set a dangerous precedent for rest of the country if this rule-until-the-courts-intervene style of governance continues.

I fear that once we start going down that path of allowing temporary legislative majorities to change the rules to entrench their power and benefit themselves in a variety of ways, regardless of what the people want, that it will snowball, Weiser said.

Excerpt from:

Civil Liberty Groups Decry North Carolina’s Restrictive Laws Push – NBCNews.com

The Truth About Bankruptcy | DaveRamsey.com

You did everything you could to avoid it. You cut back on spending. You sold stuff to make payments. Youve been eating peanut butter and jelly. But even with all the work, youve come to one painful conclusionyou may need to file bankruptcy.

There are some things you need to know before you take that first step. We want to help you find those answers.

Related: If you need help right now, contact one of our financial coaches.

The money class that will change your life!

When you file for bankruptcy, youre telling the court that you cannot pay your debts. Its a process set up through federal laws. It cancels many of your debts so you can get a fresh start. However, it also allows creditors (people you owe money to) to get a share of any money the courts require you to pack back.

When you file for bankruptcy, creditors have to stop any effort to collect money from you, at least temporarily. Most creditors cant write, call or sue you after youve filed. Bankruptcy can also stop foreclosure on your home, repossession of property, or garnishment of your wages.

There are two main types of bankruptcy for consumers. Youve probably heard of them:

Youve probably heard of other types of bankruptcy, like Chapter 11. Its typically reserved for business. You may also hear of Chapter 12 bankruptcy, which is for farmers and fishermen.

For specific information about bankruptcy laws in your area, visit the United States Courts website. There youll find information on the process and where to find help in your area. There is a bankruptcy court for each judicial district in the US90 districts in all.

Filing for bankruptcy is a big deal, so you dont want go in blind. Here are some things you need to do before you take any action:

If your family decides to file bankruptcy, well be here to help you during the process and give you the tools to restore your hope after your bankruptcy is discharged. Well never get angry with someone for filing bankruptcy. Its a difficult, emotional situation. We get that.

If you havent filed yet, we have coaches available to meet with you and work with you to find a better option than filing if at all possible.

Our ultimate goal is to help you find financial peace and change your family tree. Bankruptcy is a setback, sure. But your situation, no matter how bad, is never hopeless.

Let us help.

Learn more about our financial coaches and the services they provide.

The money class that will change your life!

More here:

The Truth About Bankruptcy | DaveRamsey.com