Gaming the Courts

Next: SCOTUS to Make Pi=3.0 For Easier Math

The reason why tranny insanity is taking hold is because of the Supreme Court. On June 15, 2020, SCOTUS ruled in 3 separate cases that Title VII of the Civil rights act applies to LGBT people, thus making men who believe themselves to be women as official super citizens who are entitled to more rights than the rest of us. This effectively places delusional people in charge.

The cases were Bostock v. Clayton County, Zarda v. Altitude Express, and Stephens v. Harris Funeral Homes. Writing for the six-3 majority, Justice Gorsuch held that Title VII’s protections against discrimination or harassment “because of sex” extend to members of the LGBT community. Specifically, Title VII prohibited firing the Plaintiffs because they were gay or transgender, because sex necessarily plays a role in the decision.

This means that the Federal government has, through SCOTUS, officially granted transgenders the full protections of the law.

It’s gonna get worse as the empire collapses.

By Divemedic, ago

My Comments to Miguel:

Over at Gunfreezone, Miguel posts about people abusing claims of domestic abuse in order to gain leverage in divorce cases. I have twice been accused of this by angry ex-girlfriends who were trying to get revenge on me for daring to be their ex:

the law is abused. Here are the disturbing statistics:

25% of all divorces include accusations of domestic violence.
50% of all domestic violence restraining orders are issued without allegations of violence.
70% of domestic violence restraining orders are trivial or false. (PDF warning)
85% of restraining orders are against men

In fact, a New Mexico woman filed a restraining order against David Letterman in 2005, alleging that she was a victim of his domestic abuse. He had never met the woman. She said that he was using secret code words during his television show to threaten her. The judge in the case found her claims to have merit and granted the order, even though it was later overturned.

The law says that women can make an accusation of domestic violence and the court will punish the man by issuing a restraining order without him being allowed to defend himself. He gets a hearing two weeks later, but by that time his guns have been taken and his concealed weapons permit revoked. There is no fee for the woman to do this.

She gets a free lawyer. He does not. When it is discovered that she lied, nothing happens to her. She will not be prosecuted, and cannot be sued or punished in any way.

The Florida State Supreme Court has this to say on the matter:

Unfortunately, the current version of section 784.046 does not seem to permit the trial court to simply dismiss a sworn petition that does not allege facts that fall within the statutory language. Instead, section 784.046(5) requires that “[u]pon the filing of the petition, the court shall set a hearing to be held at the earliest possible time.” The result is the use of scant judicial resources to conduct unnecessary hearings based on pleadings that could never support the issuance of an injunction. These same hearings often serve only to inflame the parties’ emotions and foster further uncivil behavior. I would encourage the legislature to consider amending the domestic violence and repeat violence statutes to allow judges to dismiss petitions that, on their face, do not contain allegations sufficient to meet the statutory requirements without prejudice to the petitioner refiling a legally sufficient petition if he or she can do so.

Women who lie to use the law as a weapon cannot be punished. From the same decision:

Further, nowhere in section 784.046 is there any provision for an award of sanctions against a petitioner who uses the statutory provisions concerning injunctions as a sword rather than a shield.

By Divemedic, ago

First, Kill the Lawyers

A year ago, I reported on an incident at a Target where a group of “teens” were stealing from a Target store. The store contacted police, who just happened to be conducting training nearby, and the cops attempted to take the young criminals into custody. The criminals, who were illegally armed with at least one firearm, tried to ram the responding deputies, whereupon the cops fired multiple shots into the car, killing one and wounding two others.

The lawyers for our young thugs stepped in and claimed that the police were not in uniform, driving unmarked cars, and did not identify themselves. They then shot into the car while at least one of them had his hands in the air. (If they weren’t known to be cops, why were the criminals surrendering?) Anyhow, Target then declined to file charges.

The reason I mention this is because the criminals are now suing Target for the cops shooting them, claiming that Target allowing the cops to use their parking lot for training was some sort of conspiracy to use the criminals as training subjects, so the police could use vehicles and guns on live subjects.

One of the claims is that Target knew, through their video surveillance, that the three thugs were stealing. They also knew that the cops were outside. The lawsuit claims that Target has a duty to warn all of its customers of hazards that may be present on the premises, and therefore has a duty to warn shoplifters that the cops are outside waiting to arrest them.

This is the kind of thing that lawyers should be penalized for doing. Our courts are overworked as it is, and this is the kind of money hunting, ambulance chasing behavior that needs to be discouraged. There are plenty of companies out there that are total jerks and need to be dragged into court. This case isn’t one of those.

By Divemedic, ago

Threat to Democracy

The Democrats claim that Trump was a fascist dictator because he ignored Congress and said the press was fake news. He was a threat to Democracy because he, they claim, wanted to end run around Congress and the electoral college.

Yet Biden is ignoring Congress and the law while Democrats in Congress are calling the SCOTUS an “illegitimate court.” How that doesn’t count as doublethink, I will never know. We have always been at war with East Asia.

The Constitution is just a piece of paper that they need to figure out how to circumvent.

By Divemedic, ago

SCOTUS and the Revolution

News broke yesterday that Jane Roberts, wife of the Chief Justice, was soliciting large sums of money from powerful law firms in exchange for recruiting lawyers. More than $10 million in eight years. There was a lot of speculation during those years about Roberts being compromised. Theories were bandied about, some involving blackmail. Turns out it was good old fashioned grift.

Now that is going to cost SCOTUS. The left is involved in a political coup against the conservative justices. I don’t think that there is enough there for an impeachment, but after the 2024 elections, who knows?

By Divemedic, ago

Pass an Amendment

Congress wants to pass a law requiring that SCOTUS adopt a code of conduct. I don’t think this is Constitutional. Any rules for SCOTUS would be in Article III of the Constitution, and there is nothing there granting Congress authority over the Supreme Court. If they want to do this, an Amendment would be required.

It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS reacts to this. The left wants badly to bring this court to heel, or even impeach a justice or two.

By Divemedic, ago

Every Trick in the Book

The New York indictment against President Trump was filed under seal. When a case is filed under seal, the parties involved are not supposed to say anything about the case. At this point, the only people who could release the details of the indictment are either the prosecutor, the members of the grand jury, or the court itself, all of whom are under orders to say nothing. Naturally, that doesn’t prevent the release of some details of the case. The left is freely releasing leaking the details of the indictment that look as bad as possible for the Defendant.

Now there are reports that the judge in the case is going to issue a gag order against the former President, with a penalty of jail time if he says a word in the court of public opinion. His opponents are under no similar restriction. This is a travesty of justice, and an illustration that our legal system has nothing to do with justice.

As I have said before, the left will stop at nothing to put Trump in prison. He goes there, and there is a high probability that he will commit suicide while alone in his cell and the cameras aren’t working.

By Divemedic, ago

This Makes Me Happy

A Federal Judge in Illinois ruled that outlawing particularly dangerous weapons, high capacity magazines, and dangerous weapons accords with US history and tradition, meaning that the state of Illinois lawfully exercised their authority to control their possession, transfer, sale and manufacture by enacting a ban on commercial sales, which comports with the Second Amendment.

I love this decision because it doesn’t set court precedent, but is almost guaranteed to be overturned on appeal, which WILL have precedential meaning.

By Divemedic, ago