As the 2018-19 Supreme Court Session winds down, three rulings have recently been released that have the attention of talking heads everywhere.
Joining Dave to chat about then is Pat the Lawyer from Constitution Thursday – The Saturday Podcast. First up, the Bladensburg Cross has passions running high, but the Court reached a 7-2 decision that this specific cross is NOT unconstitutional.
Next up, the Gundy case has Progressives apoplectic over Justice Alito’s concurrence to uphold the law which allows Congress to delegate to the Attorney General the control of rules constraining sexual offenders. In an unusual 5-3 ruling, Justice Alito made it clear that he would be happy to overturn the non-delegation doctrine, just not today…
Last up is the much ballyhooed Gamble case, in which the Court upheld the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine. This isn’t just bad news for Mr. Gamble, but is a clear loss for the Administration and specifically President Trump. A bigger question, though, is why did the Prosecutors in Alabama feel the need to hammer Mr. Gamble?
Yesterday, it was announced that the Supreme Court had declined to hear a case which was challenging the Feres Doctrine. This is a long-standing SCOTUS ruling that military personnel are not permitted to sue the Government for medical malpractice or in the event of injury, illness or even death.
Many, including two sitting Associate Justices, have criticized the Doctrine for its unfairness. But is it really unfair?
Montel William recently tweeted that people who do a certain thing on their profile would be unfollowed and blocked by him. The problem is, as it became clear in the following thread, he didn’t actually know what the thing he that was upset about and banning people for actually was. He still doesn’t. In point of fact, neither do I, although both he and I have a vaguely contextually idea.
That is a big part of the problem, when it comes to censorship and/or editorial controlling speech on non-governmental platforms. If we don’t know what we are looking at, how do we look when we start banning and/or editorially controlling the content of speech? Read the rest of this entry