We’re all supposed to be worried about hate and bullying.
But the hate and bullying in this case seems to be lost on everybody.
We’re all supposed to be worried about hate and bullying.
But the hate and bullying in this case seems to be lost on everybody.
Ninth Circus (!) makes a pro-2A ruling.
At first glance, without having actually read the opinion, I thought the state would have an out, in that it could have totally eliminated CCW and been in compliance with this ruling. The reason I thought that is that I would have thought the judges would have struck down “may issue” systems for substantive due process. Because that’s what I would have done.
But the Fourth Amendment didn’t come up at all in the majority opinion. It was entirely Second Amendment, and the meat of the ruling is this: A jurisdiction must either allow OC or CCW or both to all qualified interested legal individuals in order to be square with 2A by itself.
If SCOTUS takes this up, and I think they’ll have to, because as this opinion states, there are other contradictory rulings on this matter from other Federal appellate circuits, and if SCOTUS signs on to this legal reasoning, it’s going to have some widespread implications.
If that’s their angle, why aren’t they going to Federal court and using full faith and credit as the grounds?
“But we’re not asking Missouri to do gay marriages. We just want them to recognize other states’ gay marriages.”
Which would be effectively the same thing.
OTOH, thinking out loud here, if the judiciary forces FF&C on gay marriages, they can also force FF&C on CCW.
The city tried to defend the ordinance with this argument:
The City … contends that inner-city gang members and criminals find it hard to travel to the suburbs, thus making it more difficult for them or their likely straw purchasers to shop at gun stores. Dr. Philip Cook, one of the City’s experts, attributes this travel difficulty to the “parochial[ism]” of gang members, and CPD Commander Gorman believes that making the trip to the suburbs is dangerous for gang members because they may have to cross rival gang boundaries both in Chicago and in the suburbs. So through these ordinances, Chicago intentionally increases the distance that Chicagoans have to travel to get to gun stores in order to tack on extra transaction costs (measured in time, effort, and danger) to any criminal attempt to buy guns. These extra transaction costs, the argument goes, deter would-be criminals from buying guns.
But these transaction costs are also borne by law-abiding residents of these neighborhoods, who are equally parochial and may suffer many of the same dangers by crossing into gang-infested territory. So whatever burdens the City hopes to impose on criminal users also falls squarely on law-abiding residents who want to exercise their Second Amendment right. What’s more, it is doubtful that keeping criminal users away from legitimate retail stores will choke the supply of guns to those users. According to a survey of convicted felons proffered by the City itself, “[l]egitimate firearms retailers play a minor and unimportant role as direct sources of the criminal handgun supply.”
“The parochialism of gang members.”
It’s amazing what supposedly non-racist or anti-racist people will say about black people when they think nobody is looking.
And this isn’t a function of gang membership or affiliation, either. Generally speaking, blacks don’t have much of an ambition to travel.
It all fits together so neatly, so comprehensively.
I only wish they would have ruled in her favor, so she would have gotten her kid back, taken both the kid and herself back to Guatemala, and some dweeby white people would have learned their lesson about taking in cuckoo birds. But the article doesn’t say where the mother currently is, if she’s still in country and in state, or whether she was physically deported back to Guatemala. Of course, since actual physical deportation is rare, it’s highly likely she’s still here, and will probably be here for the rest of her life barring the election of an actual immigration patriot as President.
Either way, we’re stuck with the kid. And we’re stuck with more and more fresh floods of non-white legal and illegal aliens to work at the chicken plucking plant where this drama all began.
Now maybe someone will hold her, Bob McCulloch and Glenn Boyer accountable over the truth squad scandal.
This time, it means that it’s full steam ahead for transfers out of the KCPS.
That sound you hear is that from people in every other district in Jackson County and every district in every county that borders Jackson praying that the KCPS doesn’t pick theirs.
St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley claimed at the crime meeting that city judges don’t support the idea [of an armed offender docket, aka gun court] because it affects mainly African-Americans, while most judges are white and don’t live in dangerous North Side neighborhoods.
Of the 27 judges who voted Monday, five are black. Of them, three voted against Garvey’s proposal.
Joyce noted that Judge Jimmie Edwards lives in north St. Louis, and that for now, Dutchtown, to the south, is the city’s most dangerous neighborhood.
That’s because Dutchtown isn’t so Dutch anymore, more like Bell Curve Town.
Of the 22 white judges, the vote was 13-9 against. This means 59% of the white judges voted against it, and 60% of the black judges voted against it. This is one time when race isn’t a factor, and you know I’m ultra-sensitive to find racial explanations for anything.
I usually don’t name most judges, but I’m going to do that with this story because the judges are crucial to the plot.
The 22nd Judicial Circuit today rejected the idea for a formal armed offender docket (“gun court”) and instead adopted an alternative plan advanced by Judge Larry Dierker for what is almost the functional equivalent.
Until now, I wasn’t really opposed to a gun court. But I trust Dierker’s judgment. What’s really interesting here is that Dierker stated that courtrooms “are not a laboratory for a social work experiment.” The Slay/Joyce/Dotson gun court proposal would involve it working closely and intimately with UMSL’s criminology department, where former Chief Dan Isom is now a professor. You know, ever since Isom left the SLPD for UMSL, UMSL’s criminology department has functioned de facto as an arm of the SLPD. I get the feeling what Dierker meant with that statement is that the formal gun court would pretty much enshrine the revolving door relationship between the SLPD and UMSL, and he doesn’t want that to happen. OTOH, if you read the language of Dierker’s alternate proposal that was adopted, you see UMSL is still involved, so there goes that theory.
Then you have to step back and laugh at the whole process. What is all this criminology research supposed to tell us? I have an easier, simpler, quicker and cheaper idea: Name and shame the ook.
This JITB is in McKinley Heights, an iffy neighborhood that is, like the “meat” in a JITB burger, sandwiched in between gentrified Lafayette Square, gentrified Soulard and gentrifying Benton Park. You saw some of the buildings in it in one of my house tours.
As far as the matter at hand, it leaves fast feeders in trouble areas in a Catch 22. Their employees intervene against ook crime, civil rights lawsuits and NAACP bitching. Their employees don’t intervene, vic sues.
A Federal trial level judge has laughed the EEOC out of court. Now, there are still two whole levels of the Federal judiciary that could still hear this. But for now, we’ll call this good news.
I usually don’t link to source material that names judges, but my blogging at the moment is mobile, so I need to work as conveniently as possible.
The last paragraph is the best:
There are simply no facts to support a theory of disparate impact, the judge writes, further stating: “By bringing actions of this nature, the EEOC has placed many employers in the “Hobson’s choice” of ignoring criminal history and credit background, thus exposing themselves to potential liability for criminal and fraudulent acts committed by employees, on the one hand, or incurring the wrath of the EEOC for having utilized information deemed fundamental by most employers.”
What is a bit disappointing is that the judge even used the disparate impact test at all. Then again, he’s bound by the precedent of higher courts, and by this time next year, disparate impact might be laid flat on the mat hearing a ten count.
Actually, if certain people had their way, employers would not be in a Hobson’s Choice, they’d be in a Holder’s Choice, and that kind of choice wouldn’t be a paradox, it would be a singular commandment: Thou shalt hire black felons.
SCOMO applies the Miller case to two St. Louis murder convicts who were under 18 at the time they murdered, including the younger man in the Hickory Street murders of 2009.
Per the spirit of the Miller decison, they still might get straight life, but it cannot be an automatic legal given.
SCOMO turns down his lawyer’s latest hail mary, which was to get the murder conviction overturned because the jurors saw all the cops in the courthouse in Clayton and therefore were intimidated into finding him guilty.
Using that line of logic, then every guilty verdict on the part of every jury is illegitimate, because the jurors see at the very least sheriff’s deputies securing the court house and transporting inmates.
If the Federal judiciary doesn’t take this case up, then ole Rock Head here will soon have a date with Ole Sparky.
New London, Connecticut
Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops
A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.
“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”
He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.
Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.
Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.
But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.
Jordan has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.
So, police work would bore him but prison work wouldn’t.
Straight up: We all know why they cut off applicants above a certain IQ level.
A Rush caller today floated an interesting theory about where the advocates of gay “marriage” will go from here.
Before I state the theory, I have to stipulate that as it turns out, the SCOTUS decisions yesterday not only didn’t legalize gay “marriage” in one single jurisdiction that heretofore did not recognize them, but also the full faith and credit exemption clause in DOMA was not struck down. What I mean by that is that ordinarily, all states have to recognize the documents and business of all other states according to the Federal Constitution, but DOMA created an exception to that for gay “marriages,” in that states don’t have to recognize the gay “marriages” of states that do them.
The caller’s theory was that gay “marriage” states would start refusing to recognize the heterosexual marriages recorded in states that don’t recognize gay “marriage.” Now, neither the caller nor Rush himself said what I’m about to say, but I think I know the reason why gay states will do this — Not because they literally want not to recognize straight marriages from normal states, but because they’re trying to create another court case. While there is a FFC exemption for gay “marriages,” there is not one for normal marriages. So if Massachusetts refuses to recognize Alabama’s straight marriages because Alabama doesn’t do gay “marriage,” they know full well that an Alabama married straight couple that moves to Massachusetts will sue in Federal court when they realize their new state doesn’t recognize their Alabama straight marriage, on FFC grounds. And that’s what Massachusetts wants — They want the Federal judiciary to rule that the fact that there’s an FFC exemption for gay but no FFC exemption for straight is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Then at that point, every state will have to recognize the gay “marriages” that any state does, even if the states don’t do gay “marriages” themselves. This instantly basically makes irrelevant all the state-level legislation definition-of-marriage Constitutional amendments passed since Missouri was the first to do so in 2004, as Adam and Steve from LGBTQMIAPDLOLPLPLTHville St. Louis can go to Boston and get “married,” and Missouri has to recognize them as “married.”
In related snooze, the ACLU has hired former McCain 2008 campaign manager Steve Schmidt to ride herd for gay “marriage” within Republican ranks. That’s the best news I had all day — After all, we all know Schmidt’s winning track record, don’t we, President McCain?
This was inevitable the day we legitimized interracial marriage. You can’t say yes to interracial but no to gay. Oh, maybe you can for awhile, but the discordance is untenable.
I’ll read and break down the Justices’ opinions later. Right now, I’m focused on immigration.
You’re reading a lot of claptrap in the breaking news about how SCOTUS found the Voting Rights Act (or key sections of it) unconstitutional.
All they did was order that the DOJ come up with a better, more timely more up-to-date formula on determining which jurisdictions have to do preclearance. They did NOT find the Federal government’s power to require preclearance of some jurisdictions but not all unconstitutional, much less find the whole concept of preclearance unconstitutional, much less find the VRA unconstitutional. IOW, in the heart of the matter, they found for the Feds/VRA.
Left wing crackpots are all jumping off the ledge over this decision. Ordinarily, I would not dissuade them from their paranoia, because when people are making fools of themselves, I tend to get out of their way. My purpose in doing this post is that I don’t want any of our people to get it in their heads that SCOTUS actually did much good for our cause. For you would think they did just from listening to the kook left’s reaction.
If I was a member of the Supreme Court (yeah, I know, from my mouth to Allah’s ears), I would find the geographical dichotomy of preclearance unconstitutional for the uniformity doctrine (i.e. you can’t make espionage a Federal crime in Iowa but not in Oregon), and I would find preclearance itself unconstitutional for the leverage that the Constitution gives states in determining the parameters of elections, with some limits placed by both the original 1787 Constitution and later amendments. I would also find that if states and localities are behaving unconstitutionally in that regard, the better paths to remediation are case-by-case consent decrees. You think the MSNBC crackpots are raging now? They’d go into a total nuclear meltdown after what I would do.
Speaking of what I would do, if I was a politician, I would call for the repeal of the VRA ’65 in toto and replace it with this. The last time I floated “this,” some of you had some bones of contention with this part or that part, but unfortunately, I couldn’t mount a defense of my proposal here because that happened on The Fateful Sunday.
It is now my understanding from reading the majority decision that SCOTUS today invalidated the concept of forcing a jurisdiction to have to do permanent preclearance at the level of statutory law or regulatory code. While preclearance can still be required of certain places, the law or regulatory code which mandates it won’t be able to require it in perpetuity, and presumably, the preclearance requirements will either have sunset dates or non-dated behavioral triggers or benchmarks which would result in the preclearance mandate lifted for a given jurisdiction.
This slightly moves my meter in the happy direction. However, my fundamental opinion that today’s ruling is far more a victory for them than us still stands.
And don’t think that Congress won’t pass a preclearance bill of some sort. Back in 2006, a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican President renewed the existing VRA for another 25 years. The vote was something close to 400-30-ish in the House and 98-0 in the Senate. Do you expect today’s Republican House/Democrat Senate/Democrat President axis to act any differently? Hunter Wallace and Paul Kersey don’t call it BRA for their health.
I re-read John Roberts’s majority opinion. My less than enthusiastic reaction to what SCOTUS did today has not changed.
But there was a bombshell in it that I missed the first time. The Feds/Obama/Holder/DOJ admitted point blank, using the phrase “reverse engineered,” that way back when, back when the VRA was first crafted, that the way certain states and jurisdictions were forced to do preclearance wasn’t based on any objective criteria agreed upon then search for violators, it was a matter of choosing the “offending” jurisdictions first then finding some commonality which would apply to them all but ensnare no other states or jurisdictions. When more states and jurisdictions were later added to the preclearance list in 1970 and 1975, based on data from the 1968 and 1972 Presidential elections, the same thing happened — The Feds decided on who they wanted to pick on, and then worked backward from there to find some criteria which would fit only them and no others. IOW, the whole notion of preclearance and who had to do it was entirely a matter of fulfilling political vendettas. It’s like saying you want to throw John Smith, Jane Jones, Cindy Doe and Jerry Williams in jail and no other people, so you dig through those four individuals’ life histories and present circumstances to find something in common about those four and only those four but nobody else, make whatever that is a crime, then arrest the four of them.
I always suspected that the reason Arizona was put on the preclearance list was that the state had the temerity to produce an opponent to Lyndon Johnson in 1964.
Someone at Steve Sailer speculated that with the weakening of the VRA, the race-gerrymandered Congressional districts that the VRA mandates would also go bye-bye, and this would hurt House Republicans. Except that the benefit to both black Democrats and white Republicans that came of the gerrymanders is now so well known that even in the absence of the VRA mandating them, (I actually think that that part of the VRA was either repealed or nullified long ago), that if Republicans plus black Democrats in a given state legislature overpower white liberal Democrats, that it will be full gerrymandering ahead. Missouri was never part of the VRA preclearance, yet such a gerrymandered Congressional map was enacted in 2011 anyway. If Congress passes any kind of fixes to the VRA, I’m sure they will include race-gerrymandering mandates, for it is that which saved House Republicans’ bacon last year.
The only thing you can read from what SCOTUS did today is that they didn’t want to come to a decision and establish precedent. They did order Appeals-5 to reexamine the case using strict scrutiny, but I don’t see how that will necessarily help Miss Fisher. That’s because the Texas policy doesn’t explicitly use or mention race, it just lets everyone who finishes in the top 10% of their high school class into the UT system. Sure, you know and I know and George W. Bush knows (this was one of his great accomplishments as Governor of Texas) that this is all a workaround for race based affirmative action, because the valedictorian of ghetto or taco high school isn’t going to be as worthy as some white student in a hard white high school whose class rank was one spot under the top 10%. However, the only way for the Federal judiciary to knock this down is to use the doctrine of disparate impact, and that’s a non-starter with me because I don’t think that doctrine should even exist, as it’s most often use to invalidate police and fire department entrance and promotion tests that have a “disparate impact” on blacks and Hispanics, i.e. it’s a fairly written test that exposes innate racial differences in intelligence.
The bad news: The same SCOTUS that ruled today (even Scalia) that states can’t require proof of citizenship to register to vote is going to take up the whole legal theory of disparate impact in the 2013-2014 term.
Neutral news: The majority, concurring and dissenting opinions, however they vote on this case, should be interesting to read.
If they find in favor of disparate impact jurisprudence, then virtually all statutory law is threatened, simply because almost all statutory laws, from murder on down to local dog code ordinances, have a “disparate impact” on blacks and Hispanics.
For the second time in three years, SCOMO finds in favor of the unaccredited-transfer law.
Obama administration reverses course on Plan B pill
The emergency contraceptive will be available over the counter with no age restrictions, the government announces, pending a judge’s approval.
The Obama administration dropped its long-standing opposition to over-the-counter sales of a controversial morning-after pill Monday and decided to permit consumers of any age to buy Plan B One-Step without a prescription.
In papers filed in federal court in New York, government attorneys announced that the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services would remove age and point of sale restrictions on the emergency contraceptive, pending approval by U.S. District Judge [*****]
The decision would not apply to similar brands of emergency contraceptives, or to a two-pill version of the same drug, which is manufactured by the Israel-based pharmaceutical firm Teva. Loretta Lynch, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, wrote in the court papers that other manufacturers could submit approval applications, but the FDA might grant Teva “marketing exclusivity.”
Obama wanted OTC Plan B for everyone of any age all along. The judge’s ruling just gave him cover; any pretense of the DOJ ever appealing or balking at the judge’s ruling was entirely for show. If Obama and his DOJ was so upset, they would press on with their appeal.
This is why I say — Public statements are useless, judicial appointments tell all. By their fruits, ye shall know them.
I know the Federal judge who made this ruling is a Reagan appointee. I also know that Obama wouldn’t appoint anyone to the Federal judiciary who wouldn’t make the same ruling.
And also…to those of you who think that this will result in a reduction of the Bellcurvius or Comprehensive population, keep dreaming. That bun in the oven often becomes a welfare check. They’re not running to the store to buy OTC Plan B.
Judges Not Understanding Their Role
Many of you have now heard that a federal judge has ordered the FDA to make the Emergency Contraceptive pill available to all ages. Here is the decision, if you want to read all 59 pages. case
Please forget the politics or the actual benefits of not having underage unwanted pregnancy. I am not addressing these issues.
My problem with this decision relates to the very common problem of Judges overstepping their roles. We have a separation of powers for a reason. Judges are not put on the bench to perform executive functions. Instead, they are there to review executive decision to determine if they are arbitrary or capricious. This is a very high standard.
Go there to read the rest.
And yes, I can link to this source material because “Paul” has the good sense not to plaster the judge’s name all over creation. Then again, if Paul is who I think he is, he has a really good reason to critique the judiciary in the generic rather than isolate judges by name then slam slam slam.
Here’s the angle I’m grinding over: If this judge’s ruling becomes policy, then anyone of any age will be able to buy levonorgestrel. So we’re saying that 12-year old girls can buy levonorgestrel from any given retailer that sells it, but a 20-year old cannot buy a concealable firearm from a FLFD. Okay…
If a 12-year old girl is buying levonorgestrel, this means that some postpubescent human male has very recently had vaginal intercourse with her. Which means statutory rape in almost all instances.
Politico: Republican barnacle class wants SCOTUS to “get it over” and legalize gay “marriage” right away. Their reasoning is that if SCOTUS does that, it will take the issue off the table as a wedge issue for the left, and in fact will take it off the table as an issue in general.
Sure, just like Roe v Wade did for aborticide.
This is why you read this space, and why I get paid the big bucks — To translate this kind of bullshit into English.
What this really means is that the barnacle class of Republican consultants is for gay “marriage,” and they want SCOTUS to rule in favor of it as forcefully as they can so they have the skirt of a SCOTUS decision to hide behind, an excuse not to oppose it and to marginalize people and candidates who want to oppose it. The Neal Boortz right-libertarian types, who wish the “religious right” would just shut up and go away (but keep on voting Republican), are coveting that SCOTUS is as profound on the “libertine” side of the gay “marriage” cases in front of them right now as they were in Roe v Wade. They can say, “the issue is settled, the Supreme Court has spoken, so quit talking about social issues.”
Here’s an analogy I can use for our side — The Heller and McDonald decisions. With SCOTUS precedent firmly on our side, it is for our side of the 2A question a convenient bludgeon to demoralize the other side.
Washington, D.C. and Michigan
Will hear an appeal on Appeals-6 overturning MCRI, and will hear it sans Kagan, who had to recuse herself because she argued against MCRI while she was still USSG and while the issue was working its way up the Federal judiciary.
I took SCOTUS granting cert as a clue that it wants to overturn App-6, and that Kagan won’t be invited to the party is even better news.
But before you think he’ll actually do life without parole, remember the Miller v Alabama decision from SCOTUS last year, relating to life without parole sentences for those under 18 (at the time they committed their crimes). While the Federal judiciary might let the life without parole sentence stand here, they might not. The state might have to give him the “chance” of parole many decades down the road.
“Killer” above said as he was being sentenced:
“The hand that pulls the trigger that killed your sons now masturbates to the memory,” he said, then cursed at and gestured obscenely toward the victims’ relatives.
Oh yeah, killer. Joke about sex metaphors just as you’re about to enter prison.
Quinn and Madigan are both sitting at 14 at the blackjack table. Quinn says hit, Madigan says hold.
Yeah, maybe SCOTUS would overturn the 7th. But maybe they wouldn’t, and in the process, they would set a big precedent relating to both CCW and interstate reciprocity thereof, and perhaps also bork a lot of these post-Sandy Hook gun grabber bills. However, under Madigan’s hold strategy, Illinois can pass CCW legislation in theory but is so gutted and watered down that it might as well not exist, and since it would have no reciprocity, we still wouldn’t be able to cross the river while carrying.
From Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman:
I’ve got a simple idea: Let’s give up on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it’s really not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie. For example, most of our greatest Presidents — Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts — had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way.
To be clear, I don’t think we should give up on everything in the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago. Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn’t a natural-born citizen. So what? Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control. None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical of most forms of gun control. I understand, though, that’s not everyone’s view, and I’m eager to talk with people who disagree.
But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do. So instead of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago. Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion. Instead of a question on policy, about which reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one’s commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America itself.
This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today. If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.
Sure, because the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with America…except for founding it.
But if the going mentality is that the Founders are as “alien” as the “French or the United Nations,” then no sweat — Ruth Bader Ginsburg wants members of the Federal judiciary to consider “international law.” And what’s with all this liberal bashing of the French and the UN all of a sudden? I thought they loved them.
Of course, we’ll always “need” it, as long as there is a pipeline of wise Latinas that need lifetime sinecures. Because…you know…social justice.
This takes the big mystery on how she’ll rule in affirmative action cases…unless it won’t, and there never was any mystery.
His name is Ronnell Hood. He fired at a St. Louis City cop with a rifle.
He threw himself on the mercy of the court.
The ACA wanted 20 years.
The judge gave him four years.
SLPOA and newly minted Police Chief Sam Dotson outraged.
First off, look on the bright side: He got four years — Chief Keef didn’t even do a month for shooting at a Chicago cop. Then again, the Mississippi River is wide, very wide. Even though it’s literally too low for comfort right now.
Second, why is Dotson and his cavorting with the anti-white pro-black “Ethical Society of Police” self and his banter about embracing a civilian review board (giving cracker jack box theology degree black preachers veto power over the actions of white cops) outraged at all? You’d think the social justice-y aspect of this story would make him happier than a pig in slop.
Third, I won’t link to the story because it names the judge who only gave him four years, because the judge is actually a crucial part of the story. But I looked her up. And yes, I’m sure he saw her, and figured that he’d get a relative slap on the hand if he threw himself onto her “mercy.” Her CV lists her as a graduate of Howard Law School and a Bob Holden appointee, which should tell you everything.
Appeals-7 strikes down blanket prohibition on CCW in Illinois. The majority opinion seems to be begging for support for the legal diagnosis from SCOTUS that CCW is implied within the Second Amendment, just as aborticide was implied within the Fourth Amendment in Roe v Wade. You can’t make any predictions with the current SCOTUS (hint: John Roberts), but if they either bless this decision on the part of Appeals-7, or grant cert and decide the same thing, then all the dominoes fall into place: CCW is implied in Amend-2, Amend-2 is an individual right (Heller) incorporated onto the states (McDonald), and that combined with the FF&C clause in Art IV Sec 1, means that you’ve got national reciprocity in CCW.
In the real world, it won’t be that easy, though, even if the people in black robes do what we want.
A couple of other notes from today’s decision: Illinois tried to use an English statute from King Edward III, issued in 1328, to defend its position. Also, there is a 2004 decision called US vs Mayo from a case in Richmond, Virginia, that would seem to mean that New York City’s Stop-and-Frisk is probably going to make it through the Federal judiciary.