Monthly Archives: May 2022

This piece is in response to Mark Robinsons Viewpoint on April 25 The 2nd Amendment doesnt say that. My response to Robinson is that it sure as hell does.

In his piece, Robinson states that we need to adjust our understanding of the Second Amendment in that it was not written for an individual to carry a firearm. The only one whose understanding needs adjusting is Robinsons.

The rights outlined in the Bill of Rights were understood to be god given inalienable rights. The U.S. Constitution was not written to give permission to the people but to the government as a boundary, protecting the peoples god-given rights. Both presently and during the writing of the Constitution, a militia was understood to be made up of a body of citizens. These militias were armed from the citizens that made them up with their own, wait for it, individual weapons.

It was understood that individual arms were necessary to the militia and was reiterated in the Supreme Courts 2008 landmark Heller decision in which Justice Antonin Scalias majority opinion expressed as the founding generation knew that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the peoples arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents.

The intent was not on preserving the actual physical militias but instead preserving the individuals right to the arms themselves which in de facto preserves the peoples right to form said militias. The founders wrote the Constitution with a fresh account of what a tyrannical government, foreign or domestic, looked like and understood that an armed populous was the only adversary to that.

This is, not to mention, what the actual modern day Heller case outlined, that individuals could in fact own and carry firearms and the government could not outright ban a class of commonly owned firearms.

One of the many examples in the majority opinion that clearly outlines this reads The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of arms that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.

Also to counter Robinsons argument that U.S. v Miller 1936 ruled against individual ownership of firearms, Scalias majority opinion expressed that the Heller decision is consistent with how virtually all interpreters of the Second Amendment interpreted it in the century after its enactment (32-47), and is not foreclosed byany of our precedents (47-54), includingUnited States v. Miller(49-53).

In his piece, Robinson advocates for ghost gun registration, yet on the March 10 (2022) public hearing for this legislation, CT Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection Commissioner James Rovella not only claimed they didnt have data on ghost gun violent crime but it was something they didnt even track!

How could you claim something is a problem without having data to showits a problem? Is the problem just that the government cant track these weapons, because as precluded previously in my writing, thats kind of the reason for writing the Second Amendment.

Robinson says we need to have full-throated support to strengthen carry laws to ban firearms on public transit amongst other public places. I ask, what about the young mother traveling alone with her child on a city bus through crime ridden areas who cannot carry her firearm on the bus, and as a result, her walk to and from the bus? According to the latest FBI Unified Crime Report (UCR) (2020) the number one location for violent crime offenses in Connecticut is on the highway/alley/street/sidewalk. We know criminals will not follows these laws, so are you really going to disarm the most vulnerable?

I am glad that the governors proposals alluded to by Robinson did not make it out of committee. The free people of the State of Connecticut will continue to enjoy our unalienable rights as outline by the United States Constitution. I applaud the many individuals who spoke up against this legislation, who realized they had a voice, who realized these rights are worth fighting for, and who truly understands what the 2nd Amendment actually says.

Michael Rapetski lives in Cheshire.

See the original post:
Opinion: Response to 'The 2nd Amendment doesn't say that:' Actually, it does - The Connecticut Mirror

Austin, TX, May 10, 2022 Allen West, the former Republican Party of Texas chairman who recently ran in the Republican primary election against Gov. Greg Abbott, announced Monday that he would accept a nomination to be the executive vice president (EVP) of the National Rifle Association (NRA) at an upcoming meeting in Houston.

As now known, several individuals came to me via email last week requesting I consider allowing them to nominate me for EVP of the NRA, West told The Texan. I have humbly consented because the progressive socialist left seeks to eradicate our Second Amendment right.

Last week, a current and several former NRA board members announced a draft campaign to nominate West to lead the Second Amendment advocacy organization in light of the legal challenges currently plaguing the group and its current EVP, Wayne LaPierre.

West served on the NRA board from 2016 to 2021.

The NRA was chartered in New York and is currently headquartered in Virginia, but the organization has expressed interest in reincorporating and moving its headquarters to Texas.

But those possibilities have stymied as the group has been embroiled in a legal challenge from New York Attorney General Letitia James, who has been pushing for the organizations dissolution.

After watching the NRAs Bankruptcy hearings, reviewing the evidence presented and New York law, I have concluded that the likelihood of [James] winning her lawsuit against Wayne LaPierre and the other defendants is very high, said Phillip Journey, the current NRA board member who is leading the campaign to give the helm to West.

If she wins, they will be prohibited from serving in any NY non-profit. Wayne will be removed from office by court order, said Journey. As an NRA member and a member of its Board of Directors, I have a duty to plan for that contingency.

I know Col. Allen West will make a great Executive Vice President of the NRA. Col. West is a nationally recognized advocate for the Second Amendment. He has extensive political experience and a record of speaking out on the NRA Board of Directors for the reform and the restoration of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA board will hold an election for its leadership positions later this month during a meeting in Houston.

I do not seek to challenge anyone, but rather to honor my oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, said West. If we lose the Second Amendment, we lose it all, as history has taught us.

Read the original:
Allen West Accepts Draft Campaign Bid to Lead National Rifle Association - The Texan

Barton Shively, a former Marine from central Pennsylvania, had been living at home awaiting trial in the nearly year and a half since he was charged with assaulting police at the US Capitol on Jan. 6. That changed Monday, when a judge ordered him jailed after probation officers reported that hed reached for a loaded shotgun which he wasnt allowed to have during an unannounced home inspection.

Besides the 12-gauge shotgun, the probation officers saw in plain view hundreds of rounds of ammunition, a sword, knives, and body armor as they walked around Shivelys home, according to an order from US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. Shivelys motion toward the shotgun prompted one of the probation officers to draw his own weapon, the order stated. Shively displayed an alarming lack of candor with the court officers monitoring his compliance with his release conditions, the judge wrote.

Shively isnt the first person charged in connection with the Jan. 6 attack to get in trouble for having guns when theyre not supposed to. In cases where judges found that defendants charged with storming the Capitol violated pretrial release conditions, unauthorized access to firearms has been a common issue.

Most of the nearly 800 people charged in connection with Jan. 6 have been allowed to go home after making their first appearances in court. Theyre required to follow rules set by the judge while they wait for a trial or try to negotiate a plea deal; a prohibition on firearms and other weapons is often a standard condition. Under federal law, the bar is supposed to be high for a judge to put a person in jail before theyre convicted of a crime, even if theyre charged with violence or other serious felony offenses.

Thomas Robertson, a former police officer from Virginia charged with interfering with law enforcement at the Capitol, was ordered to report to jail last summer after prosecutors alerted the judge that Robertson had been trying to order firearms online and had a loaded assault rifle in his home; he hasnt faced any additional charges in connection with that. A jury last month found Robertson guilty of obstructing Congress, interfering with police, and other crimes in connection with the Jan. 6 attack; hell remain in jail until hes sentenced.

Not all gun-related violations automatically mean jail. In another Jan. 6 case, a judge accepted a deal that defendant Patrick Montgomery reached with prosecutors for home confinement after he used a handgun to kill a mountain lion. But cases like Shivelys illustrate the potentially high stakes of breaking the rules.

Mindful of the consequences of violating court orders, a few Jan. 6 defendants have argued this year to have judges officially reinstate their ability to access firearms. Defense lawyers have invoked the US Supreme Courts expansive interpretation of gun rights under the Second Amendment, as well as arguments specific to their clients.

Tina Logsdon and Loruhamah Yazdani-Isfehani, each facing misdemeanors for being in restricted areas at the Capitol, raised similar concerns about wanting to be able to protect themselves and the children in their homes when they moved to have their firearms restrictions lifted; their cases arent related but they share a lawyer. Both women are licensed to have guns. Prosecutors didnt oppose the requests as long as they were limited to a personal firearm for protection and a general weapons ban otherwise remained in place. Judges signed off.

Another defendant, Stephen Horn, successfully argued to get his firearms access back over an objection from the prosecutor. Horn is also charged with misdemeanors in connection with Jan. 6 and has a gun license, and his lawyer argued that a pretrial ban was punishment without due process of law. The prosecutor broadly defended judges authority to impose pretrial limits on firearms access and argued that Horn was already under the least restrictive release conditions. US District Judge Timothy Kelly sided with Horn in March, with the condition that he report whatever kind of gun he planned to have to the court officer overseeing his pretrial compliance.

Last month, US District Judge Trevor McFadden agreed to lift a firearms restriction for Jenny Cudd while she spends the next two years on probation after pleading guilty to illegally entering the Capitol. Cudds lawyer argued that she needed protection because shed been threatened and harassed Cudd is one of the most high-profile defendants and that the judge should have to make a specific finding that a ban was necessary and related to the nonviolent crime she admitted committing. The prosecutor opposed the request.

Not all requests have been successful. US District Judge Royce Lamberth last month denied Glenn Brooks motion to remove a firearms ban from his pretrial release conditions. Brooks had argued that he wasnt charged with violence at the Capitol, but Lamberth noted there was evidence that Brooks sent texts in the days after Jan. 6 that referenced civil war and being the 2nd Amendment side with guns and tactics, suggesting an indicia of violence. Brooks argued that he needed a gun for protection in his job as a general contractor and for when he made judge-approved trips to Haiti to do humanitarian work.

Lamberth wasnt persuaded that Brooks needed a gun as a general contractor, and wrote that if Brooks believed he needed a gun to visit Haiti, he is welcome to simply not visit Haiti.

Meanwhile, Shively the man who probation officers say reached for a loaded shotgun last week will stay in custody while his case goes forward. He doesnt have a trial date. As of February, he was open to plea talks with prosecutors, according to his docket. His attorney, Edward Ungvarsky, declined to comment.

Shively contacted the FBI to self-surrender just over a week after the Jan. 6 attack after learning his photograph had been on the news, according to his charging papers. Hes accused of pushing, punching, and kicking at police officers on Capitol grounds and faces multiple felony charges. In a voluntary interview with the FBI before he was officially charged, he admitted having physical confrontations with police, explaining, I got caught up in the moment. He was granted pretrial release but had to follow the rules of home detention, which meant he could only leave home for work, medical appointments, religious services, meetings with his lawyer, and a handful of other approved reasons.

Late last month, with the support of his probation officer and the prosecutor, Shively asked Kollar-Kotelly to approve having his ankle monitor removed. Ungvarsky wrote at the time that Shively had been diagnosed with cancer and the monitor would interfere with his treatment. The judge granted the request.

See the article here:
A Jan. 6 Defendant Is Going To Jail For Having A Loaded Shotgun And A Sword As Others Push To Get Their Guns Back - BuzzFeed News

Nrupathunga University, which was inaugurated earlier this month by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, has not met the requirements to be given the university status, alleged students. Meanwhile, the vice-chancellor of the university, which was bifurcated in 2020 from the Government Arts and Science College through an amendment in the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, said that meeting requirements such as land, academic council, syndicate and research committee is work in progress.

Heres a breakdown of what the controversy is all about.

How did the college get the university status?

The Government Arts and Science College on Nrupathunga road is one of the oldest and most prestigious colleges in Bengaluru. It is not far from Maharani Cluster University and Bengaluru City University (earlier Central College). In 2020, the Government Science College, which was bifurcated alongside the Government Arts College, was upgraded to a unitary university, and named Nrupathunga University, after the approval of Governor Vajubhai Vala through the Karnataka State Universities and Certain Other Law (Second Amendment) Act, 2020. It was given the university status after the state government recognised its contribution to society for 94 years, institutional values, academic excellence, research publications, NAAC (National Assessment and Accreditation Council) accreditation and students performance among other criteria.

What is the controversy?

Students alleged that the college had committed many violations, including that of the University Grants Commission (UGC) land rule. Narendra N, a 2020 graduate from the Government Science College, alleges that it does not meet any legal requirements to be given the university status. Through RTI replies we have come to know that the university does not have a hostel within 2 km radius, no academic council, no research committee, no syndicate and moreover is in violation of the UGC land rule which demands at least 25 acres of own land to set up a university. The Science College has hardly 5 acres as per the survey but it submitted a fake document showing 10 acres to get the university status. If the college is not meeting any of these requirements, on what grounds did the state government set up the university? asks Narendra, a National Students Union of India (NSUI) member who wants the college to be stripped of the university status. He also led a student protest opposing the increase in admission fees for bachelors in computer science from Rs 10,000 to Rs 21,000 and that for bachelors in science from Rs 4,000 to Rs 10,000 for the current academic year.

What does the university say?

According to vice-chancellor Srinivas Balli, the university is now working towards setting up an academic council, research committee, syndicate, and hostel facilities to meet the university requirements. The works for constituting academic bodies and other facilities are underway. We have written to the state government to fast-track the process and appoint nominees to meet the university criteria. In fact, all colleges undergo the same process once they are accorded the university status and we are no different. However, the Covid-19 pandemic has delayed certain decision making. Moreover, after we got the university status, we have not been given any grants from the government. Hence, we have increased the admission fees to support the laboratory expenses, medical checkups and food distribution, says Balli, who adds that talks are on with the government to also set up a hostel near the university to accommodate students.

Newsletter | Click to get the days best explainers in your inbox

What does the act say?

According to the Karnataka State Universities and Certain Other Law (Second Amendment) Act, 2020, the vice-chancellor must make arrangements for constituting the syndicate, academic council and other authorities of the newly established university within six months from the date of establishment or a period not exceeding one year.

Visit link:
Explained: Why is Bengalurus Nrupathunga University in thick of controversy - The Indian Express

Justice Alito, one of two Supreme Court nominees by President George W. Bush, has turned out to be one of the most certain conservative votes on the Court. Alitos draft majority opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson wasreleased by Politico last weekshining a spotlight on the very real possibility that the Court will overturn the constitutional right to an abortion established inRoe v. Wade.

But who is this Justice, confirmed to the Court by a vote margin of 58-42, that began his tenure on the Supreme Court on the last day of January in 2006?

One way to understand Justice Alitos behavior on the Court is through examining his authorship of majority opinions in cases decided by a single vote where no liberal justice sat in the majority.

This has happened 30 times one time in 2005, three times in 2006, one time in 2007 and in 2008, three times in 2009, two times in 2011, five times in 2012, two times in 2013, two times in 2014, one time in 2015, four times in 2017, one time in 2018, two times in 2019, and two times in 2020.

We can compare this to Justice Roberts track record in similar decisions. He was also confirmed in 2005 (a few months earlier than Alito) and authored 23 majority opinions with the same vote arrangement of conservative v. liberals. Here is a breakdown of Alitos 30 decisions:

The case in 2005 wasArlington School District Board Of Education v. Murphywhich held that winning cases under the educational Individuals with Disabilities Act did not authorize reimbursement of expert fees.

In 2006 he authored the majority opinion inHein v. Freedom from Religion Foundationwhich held that citizens do not have standing as taxpayers to bring Establishment Clause challenges against Executive Branch programs that are funded by appropriations for general administrative expenses.

In 2006 he also authored theLedbetter v. Goodyear Tiredecision which held that current effects alone cannot breathe life into prior, uncharged discrimination. For a timely claim, one would have needed to file within 180 days of a discriminatory decision.

The third 2006 decision was inNational Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlifewhich upheld the Fish and Wildlife Services determination that the Endangered Species Act applies only to discretionary actions of federal agencies.

The case in 2007 wasDavis v. FECholding that the Millionaires Amendment to the 2002 campaign finance law contribution limits violated the First Amendment.

2008s case wasHorne v. Floresholding lower courts err in their analysis under Rule 60(b)(5) regarding Arizonas position that changes in education law altered the foundations of prior court rulings which held that relief from such judgments was warranted.

In 2009 the first decision was inStolt-Nielsen v. Animalfeeds, a precursor case to Alitos decision in Janus, holding that imposing class arbitration on parties who have not agreed to authorize class arbitration is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act.

The second 2009 decision was in the case ofMcDonald v. Chicagoholding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states.

The final 2009 decision,Perdue v. Kenny A., held thecalculation of an attorneys fee based on the lodestar methodmay be increased due to superior performance in extraordinary circumstances (specific evidence that the lodestar fee would not have been enough to attract competent counsel).

The first 2011 case wasChristopher v. SmithKline Beechamholding that pharmaceutical sales representatives are outside salesmen under the Fair Labor Standards Act so that the Court did not have to defer to the Secretary of Labors interpretation of that statute.

In 2011sFAA v. Cooper the Court held that the Privacy Acts actual damages provision only allowed Cooper to recover for proven pecuniary or economic harm and not emotional distress (here the Social Security Administration shared his medical records showing he was HIV positive with the FAA).

One 2012 decision wasKoontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.holding the government may not conditionally approve land-use permits unless the conditions are connected to the land use and approximately proportional to the effects of the proposed land use.

The second 2012 decision wasClapper v. Amnesty Intl.Here the Court held that journalists and others did not have standing under Article III to challengeFISAmonitoring procedures outside of the US because no injury occurred.

In 2012sVance v. Ball Statethe Court held for the purposes of liability for workplace harassment under Title VII, the definition of a supervisor is limited to a person empowered to take tangible employment action against the victim.

Next in 2012sSalinas v. Texas the Fifth Amendments privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to defendants who decide to remain mute during questioning and that any witness who desires protection against self-incrimination must explicitly claim that protection.

Also in 2012 inMutual Pharm. v. Barlettthe Court held state law design-defect claims regarding a drugs warnings (which are stronger than federal law guidelines) are pre-empted by federal law which prohibits generic drug manufacturers from independently changing FDA approved drug labels.

The next case was 2013sBurwell v. Hobby Lobbyholding Congress intended forRFRAto treat religious corporations as people since they are made of individuals who use them to achieve desired ends so that they do not need to provide contraceptive coverage under theACA.

In 2014 the Court ruled inGlossip v. Grossthat there was no evidence that the use ofmidazolamas the initial drug in an execution was much more likely to cause severe pain (as opposed to the accuseds argument that it would do so), compared to alternatives, violating the 8th Amendment.

Next in 2014 wasDavis v. Ayalaholding habeas petitioners are not entitled to relief unless they establish the alleged error resulted from actual prejudice and that the deferential Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) standard applies to a federal habeas petition to review the state courts decision.

Alitos 2015 opinion in a case decided by a single vote came inRJR Nabisco v. European Community.This decision held provisions of RICO apply extraterritorially because the text clearly defined certain racketeering offenses as ones that can occur outside of the US if they affect commerce involving the US. This decision came down to a 4-3 vote due to Justice Sotomayors recusal and Scalias death.

In 2017sHusted v. A. Philip Randolph Inst.the Court upheld an Ohio voting law that clears the states voter rolls of individuals who have died or relocated (those that dont vote for four years and do not respond to letters confirming their registration) as not violating federal voting law.

2017sAbbott v. Perezupheld the Texas legislatures presumption of good faith and that the district court improperly reversed the burden of proof in requiring the state to show a lack of discriminatory intent in adopting a new districting plan.

In 2017sJennings v. Rodriguezthe Court held US Code Sections 1225(b), 1226(a) and 1226(c) ofTitle 8do not give detained aliens the right to periodic bond hearings during the course of their detention

In the last 2017Janus v. AFSCMEthe Court held Illinois extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violated the First Amendment overturning the Courts precedent inAbood v. Detroit Bd. of Education.

2018sNielsen v. Preapoverturned a 9th Circuit decision holding that aliens deportable for specified crimes are not subject to8 U. S. C. 1226(c)(2)smandatory-detention requirement because they were not arrested by immigration officials as soon as they were released from jail.

In 2019sHernandez v. Mesathe Court held that theBivensimplied cause of actionagainst federal government officials who have violated the plaintiffs 4th Amendment does not extend to claims based on a cross-border shooting by a federal law enforcement officer.

Also in 2019, the Court inKansas v. Garciaheld theImmigration Reform and Control Actneither expressly nor impliedly preempts Kansass use of information provided on a federal Form I-9 in its application of state identity-theft and fraud statutes to the non-citizens.

In 2020 the Court inJohnson v. Guzman Chavezheld that Section 1231, not 1226, governs the detention of aliens subject to reinstated orders of removal which means DHS does not need to wait for the alien to seek or exhaust judicial review of that order before removal.

The other opinion in 2020 was inBrnovich v. DNCwhich held neither Arizonas out-of-precinct policy norH.B. 2023violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and that H.B. 2023 was not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose so that they do not impose burdens on voters that exceed the usual burdens of voting, and any racial disparity in burdens is small in absolute terms.

Now a comparative look at these decisions. Based on theUS Supreme Court Databaseissue coding, the issues that came up in more than one of these cases include deportation, attorney fees, federal preemption of state legislation, Voting Rights Act of 1965, and governmental liability.

According to the Databases more general issue coding nine cases dealt with civil rights, four with economic activity, four with criminal procedure, three with unions, two with judicial power, two with the First Amendment, two with federalism, two with attorneys, one with privacy, and one with due process.

Alitos majority opinions decided by a single vote altered prior precedent twice in Janus and McDonald. He also held laws unconstitutional four times in the 5-4 decisions with only conservative justices in the majority and where he was the majority author in Davis v. FEC, Harris v. Quinn, Janus, and McDonald.

So far in the 2021 term Alito authored an 8-1 decision inCameron v. EMW Womens Surgical Centerreversing a 6th Circuit decision denying the Kentucky attorney generals motion to intervene on the commonwealths behalf in litigation concerningKentucky House Bill 454which regulates the abortion procedure known as dilation and evacuation.

He also authored a 9-0 opinion inFBI v. Fazagawhich held Section 1806(f) of FISA providing a procedure under which a trial-level court or other authority may consider the legality of electronic surveillance under FISA does not displace the state secrets privilege.

If we move the scope of this analysis out to view decisions made by a single vote where Alito was in the Courts majority versus when he was in dissent the graph shows the following:

Alito participated in 225 cases decided by one vote through the 2020 term. He was in the majority more often than in dissent in 12 terms, in dissent and the majority an equal number of times in three instances, and was in dissent more frequently than in the majority only in the Courts last term 2020.

If we break these cases down by the Supreme Court Databases issue coding and look at all issues where Alito has voted in decisions by one vote that occurred in more than one case we find the following:

Based on this graph we see that Alito was in the majority more frequently than in dissent for six issues death penalty, search and seizure, campaign finance, liability in civil rights act cases, natural resources, and cases dealing with judicial review of agency decisions; he was in dissent and majority an equal number of times in three of these areas federal preemption of state laws or regulations, criminal sentencing, and standing cases; and was in dissent more often than in the majority in two case areas habeas corpus and state jurisdiction in Indian law decisions.

Looking at the 5-4 decisions overturning precedent where Alito was in the majority, we find 11 decisions along with the two majority decisions where he authored majority opinions (in Janus and McDonald described above). These include:

On the other side of the coin, Alito was in the majority with four liberal justices with the rest of his conservative colleagues in dissent only one time. This was in the Courts 2019Gundy v. United Statesdecision. Alito concurred with the majority opinion here which held that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)s delegation of authority to the U.S. Attorney General to issue regulations under 42 U.S.C. 16913 does not violate the nondelegation doctrine. Alitos vote of concurrence though was tempered in that he expressed he would like to revisit the Courts approach to nondelegation but under the Courts then present jurisprudence, he found no reason to invalidate SORNAs delegation of authority in this provision.

If we move the scope out to cases decided by one vote where Alito was in the majority with three of the Courts liberal justices we find in the first case he was in the majority with Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer along with Justice Kennedy inZuni Public School District No. 89 v. Dept. of Education. This decision held that the Federal Impact Aid Program under20 U.S.C. Section 7709permits the Secretary of Education to identify the school districts that should be disregard[ed] by looking to thenumber of the districts pupilsas well as to the size of the districts expenditures per pupil.

The same majority inOregon v. Ice heldthat the Sixth Amendment does not prevent states from assigning to judges rather than to juries fact-finding responsibilities necessary to imposing consecutive sentences on criminal defendants.

Justice Alito sided with Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer along with Justice Thomas inDolan v. United States. This decision held that a court, which has missed the 90-day deadline still has the power to order restitution, at least under certain circumstances.

After the 2010 term, Justice Alito was in the majority with three liberal justices only one time. This was in the 2014 decisionYates v. United States. That decision authored by Justice Ginsburg held that for the purposes of18 U.S.C. 1519, which imposes criminal liability on anyone who knowingly . . . destroys . . . any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States, a tangible object is one used to record or preserve information.

These decisions where Alito was in the majority along with three liberal justices appear relatively low stakes compared to Alitos other decisions made by a single vote. This sheds additional light on the fact that not all Supreme Court cases decided by one vote are of equal importance. This set of cases, however, does show the Courts business in its most contentious decisions and conveys instances where the justices tend to split along these lines. This also might help point both at how we might expect Alito to vote in such decisions in the future, and where the Courts majority may lie on such contentious issues now that a 6-3 conservative majority sits at the helm of the Court with Roberts as the most likely vote to occasionally flip alongside the Courts three more liberal justices.

Read more at Empirical SCOTUS

Adam Feldman runs the litigation consulting company Optimized Legal Solutions LLC. For more information write Adam atadam@feldmannet.com.Find him on Twitter:@AdamSFeldman.

Excerpt from:
The Justice Behind The Dobbs Draft Opinion - Above the LawAbove the Law - Above the Law

Editorial toon presents false COVID reality

I take issue with the political cartoon in your issue of May 4 (Frank Shiers cartoon, Sequim Gazette, page A-10). I believe that it is seriously in error. I understand that it depicts a conservative Republican view of our governor, and although I believe that he is doing a great job, I respect the rights of others to disagree. My concern is that it states that the COVID crisis is over. Nothing could be further from the truth.

On the same editorial page, Bertha Cooper details the local situation concerning COVID and it is not good. New cases are on the rise and the virus continues to mutate. Any reliable map of COVID cases statewide show Clallam is not doing well to contain the virus.

Like everyone else, I am tired of the masking and distancing. I understand why venues are opening and large events are starting to happen. But Facts are facts, and more and more people are getting COVID. For some its a mild flu-like sickness, the long COVID is causing serious problems even for some of those folks. TO state otherwise is simply wrong.

Emma Amiad

Sequim

Be careful what you wish for

I have lived in a U.S. Democracy for 88 years; I grew up in a poor family in the Great Depression, but have enjoyed my U.S. Constitutional rights, freedoms, and protections of the Rule of Law.

Now it seems, there are U.S. citizens who apparently want an autocratic government. Be careful what you wish for! If you dont like your situation in the U.S. now, wait until you have no constitutional rights, freedom of speech, freedom to protest, and no rules of law except those of the autocrat. Violations of autocratic rules can lead to imprisonment (or worse) without a trial.

In an autocratic government, there are no Constitutional rights including no Second Amendment gun rights. Do you see citizens in Russians, North Korea or China, et al, openly carry weapons on the streets? No!

Each U.S. citizen has a right to vote to elect (choose) his/her desired local, state, and national leaders while Putin, Un and Xi are presidents for life. They make the rules, enforce their rules, and live lives of the privileged rich. Their supposed used-to-be favorites can be murdered, imprisoned, or exiled for any reason (especially lack of loyalty), including not being loyal or disagreeing on any subject deemed necessary or criminal by the ruling president.

Putin and Russian Ukraine war protesters are glaring examples! Before you think or hope Trump or any other U.S. wannabe autocrat will benefit you and your lifestyle, be careful what you wish for! It can be a terrible, long lasting mistake!

Richard Hahn

Sequim

Across the horizon

Driving cross-state on my annual Spring journey home to NE. Washington, I explored new routes through the rolling agricultural hills north of Reardan. Drifting thoughts while traveling over the beautiful up and down billowy-cloud horizon near Odessa, brought to mind Odessa, Ukraine, and the similarities of our two countries breadbasket regions which feed so many earthlings.

As Putins ruthless, genocidal attack (like Stalins in the 1930s-40s) on Ukraine, to force toxic autocracy across the landscape of that new democracy, another striking resemblance with our country emerges: the far-right infestation of the Republican Party. Both seek to control, and eliminate, enemies who dont adhere to their homogenous stricture. Environmental protection, voting rights for all eligible citizens, educated professionals who speak out, LGBTQ, womens decisions about reproduction, Medicare and Social Security, books and fact-based information, whistleblowers, investigative journalists, workers protections, small businesses with integrity, nonpolitical civil, judicial, and military services, fair trial by jury, etcetera, are targeted.

The Columbia River takes a wide, scenic curve at Brewster, carving fertile terraces superb for orchards. The rivers cold, still water is an entrancing mirror of blue sky, high plateau rocky ridges, yellow-gold banks. Migrant worker neighborhoods are common.

How such remarkably diverse places can be misused to seed anti-democracy, baleful sentiments of antipathy in their human inhabitants are beyond belief.

Ah ~ myriad bird song at dawn.

Gayle Brauner

Port Angeles

See more here:
Letters to the Editor May 11, 2022 - Sequim Gazette