Baltimore is suing some car makers whose cars are being stolen because their cars are too easy to steal. Next up: suing rape victims for dressing like they clearly want a cocktail, hold the tail.
Maybe those car makers should sue black people for stealing everything that isn’t (and some things that are) nailed down. Maybe they can take some of those future reparations payments.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Anti gun protesters storm into Congress and attempt to interfere with the People’s business. I am sure that the FBI is going to pursue this attempted insurrection with all of the vigor that they have used on J6.
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.
Granted, this ruling has no real precedential value, but a Federal judge has said that marijuana users cannot have their 2A rights taken away. Essentially ruling that marijuana is commonly used, and using it isn’t an indicator of a propensity for violence, therefore making a user of the drug into a prohibited person is a step too far, in light of Bruen. That’s the second significant case this week.
That case is the gift that keeps on giving. The best part of this ruling is that the left will be torn: Support marijuana use, or oppose guns. What to do? LOL
This past week saw a huge win for gun rights, in that SCOTUS the Fifth circuit struck down a part of the GCA that was added during the Clinton administration– making eliminating a provision of the law that prohibited persons out of people who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders. AWA over at GunFreeZone did an excellent post on the ruling, and I won’t attempt to recreate that here.
There are those who oppose that ruling and are claiming that there will be domestic abusers lining up to kill their former partners over this. I don’t think that there will be any big changes. Those who want to kill their partners just aren’t deterred by a piece of paper saying that killing someone is illegal, even if signed by a judge. The left always assumes that criminals are simply honest people who gave in to a moment’s impulse, and each of us is equally likely to give into an impulse to kill others. An interesting insight into the leftist mind, eh?
My opinion on these DV orders is that they are bullshit aimed at men in an attempt to give women another arrow in their lawfare quiver. About ten years ago, I was the subject of one of those orders. It was sought and granted without me even being present, with the initial order not even having my correct name on it, by a woman that I hadn’t even seen in months, and in that order she alleged that I did things in stalking her that were impossible because I was not even in the country when they were alleged to have happened.
David Letterman was once subject to a DV order that was obtained by a woman who lived thousands of miles away, after the woman alleged that they were in a secret affair and that Letterman was sending her secret messages using his top 10 lists as a code. Using accusations of domestic violence has become a common tactic for women who wish to win divorce and child custody cases, as well as angry girlfriends who wish to get back at former boyfriends. Men have no legal recourse against women who are proven to be lying.
Here are the disturbing statistics:
The decision that is the subject of this post fixes some of that. That isn’t how the left, or apparently Brett Kavanaugh, sees it. Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion in the Bruen case, arguing that sometimes we have to weigh in on whether or not a law is a good idea.
That’s where he is wrong.
The Amendment says “shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say “… unless you have a really good reason to do so.” The Supreme Court isn’t there to decide whether or not a law is a good idea. The court is there to decide whether or not a particular law comports with the Constitution. Deciding whether or not a law is a good idea is the job of Congress. All of the authority of the government derives from the Constitution. Any power or authority that the government takes upon itself that is outside of that authority is nothing more than tyranny, an unconstitutional power grab that is based upon the principle of “might makes right” that flies in the face of the principles upon which the “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” was built upon.
There are those who would try and make the case that there is some balancing act to be done, but that isn’t how our government is supposed to work. Thomas sees that. Scalia, although a pragmatic sort of man, saw that as well. Kavanaugh does not.
The left, well, they don’t see the Constitution as anything more than a piece of paper containing words that can be worked around, as long as the words are pretty enough.
Fuck them. Not one more inch. This decision is proof to me that the jury box isn’t completely dead. The war continues.