Category Archives: Supreme Court

We have a winner!

. . . for FOTM’s 128th Caption Contest!

As usual, FOTM‘s writers duly voted, each for what he/she considered to be the best (#1) and second-best (#2) captions. Each #1 vote is worth 4 points; each #2 vote is worth 2 points.

And the clear winner of FOTM’s 128th Caption Contest, with three #1 votes and one #2 vote, totaling 14 points, is . . .

Snoopy danceMoFrappy!

Here’s the winning caption:

“Weekend at Bernies” Supreme Court Edition

“Weekend at Bernies” Supreme Court Edition

japoa and TNrick are in 2nd place, each with one #1 vote and one #2 vote, totaling 6 points each. Here are their respective captions:

Living proof that life time appointments to the Supreme Court is a bad idea.

Justice Anthony Kennedy; “I hope her teeth don’t fall out”…

Lee Thomas is in 3rd place, with one #1 vote and 4 points. Here’s the caption:

One might conclude that Ruth has already moved to New ZZZ Land

Akita, Lola, and Wayne Johnson are in 4th place, each with one #2 vote and 2 points. Here are their respective captions:

Forgot your Geritol, Granny Ginsberg?

It seems Justice Ginsburg has recused herself from staying awake.

Laugh-In all over again Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg!

Well done, everyone!

Congratulations, MoFrappy!

Here’s your fancy-schmancy Award Certificate of Great Excellence, all ready for framing! LOL

StrawberrydancingbananaCarrotChilliMuffinPurpleBanana PineappledancingbananaCarrotChilliMuffinPineappleStrawberry

award certificate1

For all the other caption submissions, go here.

Be here tomorrow for our next very exciting Caption Contest!

Seen any good pics that you think would be great for our Caption Contest? Email them to us! :D

FOTM4ever@gmail.com

~Éowyn

The Drooling Judge Caption Contest

This is the 128th world-famous FOTM Caption Contest!

Here’s the pic, of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozing off at Obama’s 2015 State of the Union address:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg falls asleep at Obama' SOTU 2015You know the drill:

  • Enter the contest by submitting your caption as a comment on this thread (scroll down until you see the “LEAVE A REPLY” box), not via email or on Facebook.
  • The winner of the Caption Contest will get a gorgeous Award Certificate of Excellence and a year’s free subscription to FOTM:D
  • FOTM writers will vote for the winner.
  • Any captions proffered by FOTM writers, no matter how brilliant (ha ha), will not be considered. :(

To get the contest started, here’s my caption:

Justice Anthony Kennedy ponders:
“To be, or not to be–that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows sitting next to a drooling colleague
Or to take action against her raucous snores
And by waking her, end them.”

This contest will be closed in a week, at the end of next Tuesday, July 19, 2016.

For the winner of our last Caption Contest, go here.

~Eowyn

Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg: If Trump wins, it’s time to move to New Zealand

Liberals keep threatening that if so-and-so is elected, they would leave the U.S. and move to a foreign country, usually to Europe. Hollyweirdos like Alec Baldwin and Barbra Streisand had made that threat before. The problem is they NEVER actually leave. It’s just all blather and empty talk.

The latest liberal to make that threat is the very liberal Supreme Court “Justice” Ruth Bader Ginsburg — she who once said that legalizing abortion is in the cause of eugenics or, bluntly put, culling the population of black and poor people. In July 2009, in a Sunday New York Times interview, Ginsburg said:

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe [v. Wade] was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg falls asleep at Obama' 2015 SOTU

In an interview with The New York Times, last Friday, July 8, 2016, Ginsberg was outspoken about what she thinks of presumptive GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump. She moaned:

“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

She then quoted what her late husband, a tax lawyer who had died in 2010, would have said:

“Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”

Why wait till Trump is elected, Ruth Ginsburg?

Honor your husband’s memory and move to New Zealand already. I’ll even chip in $1 to help pay for your airfare.

But Ginsburg did accomplish something useful with her NYT interview: she’s reminded us why Hillary Clinton can NEVER EVER be elected president.

After the mysterious death of Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court is now (supposedly) evenly divided 4:4 between conservatives and liberals. But judging by the Court’s recent 5:3 ruling against Texas’ anti-abortion law and 4:3 decision on affirmative action (Fisher v. University of Texas), that even division is an illusion. In both cases, it came down to “Justice” Anthony Kennedy siding with the libs.

Given the ages of Ginsburg (83), Kennedy (80), and Stephen Breyer (78), the next U.S. president not only gets to nominate a replacement for Scalia (the Senate, to its credit, has refused to act on Obama’s nominee, Merrick B. Garland), the next president could well name three other Supreme Court justices as well (to replace Ginsburg, Kennedy and Breyer). That is why Ginsburg is hyperventilating at the prospect of a President Trump.

~Eowyn

This is how The Daily Show celebrates Supreme Court ruling against Texas anti-abortion law

Last Monday, June 16, 2016, the post-Scalia Supreme Court partly overturned a Texas pro-life law that led to the closure of many abortion clinics because they did not follow the same health and safety standards as legitimate outpatient surgical clinics.

That pro-life law, according to figures from the Texas health department, had led to a 15% decrease in the number of abortions from the year before, thereby saving the lives of some 9,000 babies.

Donald Trump quickly condemned the Supreme Court ruling.

Comedy Central’s The Daily Show celebrated SCOTUS’s decision with a tweet urging men to impregnate (“knock up”) someone in Texas, now that abortions are easier to get in that state.

Daily Show tweet on abortionThere’s no word other than “demonic” for The Daily Show‘s cavalier disregard for human life.

Meanwhile, pro-aborts are emboldened by the Supreme Court ruling:

  • Planned Parenthood wasted no time and is already seeking to overturn abortion clinic regulations of other states.
  • Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. Court for the Southern District of Indiana sided with Planned Parenthood in its quest to block a new Indiana law, the Dignity for the Unborn Law, before it could take effect the next day. That law, which was signed by Gov. Mike Pence earlier this year, would have protected unborn babies from being aborted simply because of a disability like Down syndrome, race or sex.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Waltan Pratt

U.S. District Judge Tanya Waltan Pratt

Since black babies are disproportionately aborted, black Judge Pratt’s ruling will ensure the unrestrained abortion of more black babies. Why isn’t she called a self-hating racist?

~Eowyn

Court: People have no right to carry concealed weapons in public

MOLON LABE.

second amendment3

From Q13Fox: A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that there is no Second Amendment protection for concealed weapons — allowing states to prohibit or restrict the public from carrying concealed firearms.

The en banc opinion by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could set up a new showdown on gun rights at the Supreme Court.

At issue was California’s law on concealed weapons, which requires citizens to prove they have “good cause” to carry concealed firearms to get a license. Plaintiffs challenged guidelines in San Diego and Yolo counties that did not consider general self-defense to be enough to obtain a license.

The 9th Circuit held 7-4 in the case, Peruta v. County of San Diego, that the restrictions on concealed carry are constitutional, ruling that the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not provide a right to carry concealed arms.

Judge William Fletcher

Judge William Fletcher

“The historical materials bearing on the adoption of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments are remarkably consistent,” wrote Judge William Fletcher, going back to 16th century English law to find instances of restrictions on concealed weapons. “We therefore conclude that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not include, in any degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”

Fletcher also cited the most recent Supreme Court cases on gun rights, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, which were major victories for gun rights activists, in making his case.

The Heller decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, solidified a Second Amendment right of the public to keep guns, but it specifically noted the right was not absolute, and Fletcher pointed out that Scalia cited restrictions on concealed weapons as a historical example.

The court was careful to make the ruling narrow. The opinion does not say concealed weapons are unconstitutional, nor does it make any decisions about openly carrying weapons in public.

The case was a blow for gun rights advocates, and sets up the fight on gun rights for the Supreme Court to consider, says UCLA law professor and gun law expert Adam Winkler.

“This case raises the next great question for the Supreme Court: Does the Second Amendment guarantee a right to carry guns in public? And if so, what kind of licensing can states use to permit people to carry concealed weapons?” Winkler said.

The Supreme Court would not necessarily have to take up the case. The ruling does not create a substantive divide among different circuit courts in the U.S., one of the major factors the court considers in weighing which cases to take.

Judge Consuelo Callahan

Judge Consuelo Callahan

Four judges dissented from the ruling, with the main dissent by Judge Consuelo Callahan (appointed by Bush) arguing that California’s laws taken together amount to a substantial restriction on citizens’ right to bear arms for self defense, as protected by the Second Amendment.

Whether the court does or does not take the case, the early 2016 death of Scalia looms large over it. Scalia authored Heller, the most substantial gun ruling in modern history of the court. And Republicans in the Senate have refused to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee for replacing Scalia on the court, meaning the eight justice panel can split 4-4.

Without a ninth justice, Winkler said, it’s unlikely the court would take up the case, even with Scalia’s allies on the issue Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas still on the court.

Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia, Judge Merrick Garland, was chosen in large part for his moderate record. But one of the most substantial conservative arguments against Garland has been that his record on guns is too liberal, though his written record on the issue is limited.

The case was argued by Paul Clement, a former solicitor general under the George W. Bush administration and one of the top litigators for conservative causes at the Supreme Court in recent years.

Ever since the Supreme Court decided the Heller decision and a follow up case two years later, the Supreme Court has declined to take another major second amendment case, a frustration Clement cited in a 2013 filing with the court.

In the years since Heller had been decided many expected a “major consideration” or extant firearms laws, Clement wrote. “Instead, jurisdictions have engaged in massive resistance to the clear import of those landmark decisions, and the lower federal courts, long out of the habit of taking the Second Amendment seriously, have largely facilitated that resistance.”

California state Attorney General Kamala Harris said the decision “is a victory for public safety and sensible gun safety laws. The ruling ensures that local law enforcement leaders have the tools they need to protect public safety by determining who can carry loaded, concealed weapons in our communities.”

ssig_biteme_100-103

DCG

High court rules non-U.S. citizens can be deported if convicted of minor crimes

constitution

From Fox News: The Supreme Court is making it easier for the government to deport or otherwise remove people who are not U.S. citizens if they are convicted of seemingly minor state crimes.

The justices ruled 5-3 Thursday that a man who spent 23 years living in New York as a lawful permanent resident can be barred from re-entering the country because of a 1999 conviction for attempted arson.

George Luna Torres had served one day in prison and five years of probation after pleading guilty in state court but otherwise had a clean record since his parents brought him into the country from the Dominican Republic in 1983.

But the government argued that the state law conviction was equivalent to an aggravated felony for purposes of immigration law.

Under immigration law, a lawful permanent resident can be deported or denied re-entry to the United States after being convicted of an aggravated felony. Those offenses include certain federal crimes as well as state offenses that share the same elements.

Luna argued that the federal crime of arson is different from the state version because it must involve interstate commerce.

Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan said that is simply a technical difference needed to give Congress authority over arson crimes and not a meaningful distinction. She said Luna’s argument would also exclude more serious state crimes, such as kidnapping, from affecting immigration status simply because a kidnapper failed to cross state lines.

“The national, local or foreign character of a crime has no bearing on whether it is grave enough to warrant an alien’s automatic removal,” Kagan said.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority was ignoring a strict textual reading of the federal law, which includes interstate commerce as part of the crime. “An element is an element, and I would not so lightly strip a federal statute of one,” Sotomayor said.

She was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer.

DCG

Schools offer how-to guide on embracing transgender students

You WILL accept and conform.

rainbow uncle sam

From NY Post: From locker rooms and sex education classes to dress codes and overnight field trips, many U.S. public schools already are balancing the civil rights of transgender students with any concerns that classmates, parents and community members might have.

The U.S. Department of Education is drawing on those practices to guide other schools as they work to comply with the Obama administration’s directive that transitioning children be treated consistent with their gender identity.

That has been the policy since 2013 of the Arcadia Unified School District in Southern California. As part of a settlement with the federal departments of Justice and Education that became the foundation for the national mandate issued Friday, students may use the bathroom, locker room or wilderness cabin that corresponds with their recognized gender outside school, Superintendent David Vannasdall said.

It does exist: The bi-gender boy who decided everyday which gender he wants to be.

Memo to Mr. Vannasdall: It does exist – the bi-gender boy who decides everyday which gender he wants to be.

“This is absolutely not about a student on a day-to-day basis saying, ‘Today I’m a boy, tomorrow I’m a girl.’ That has never happened,” Vannasdall said. (David apparently hasn’t heard of this bi-gender boy who decides what gender he’ll be when he wakes up for the day.) “By the time these students are at a point where they are asking for our help, they are presenting in all areas of their life as that gender.”

The administration had warned schools before Friday that denying transgender students access to the correct facilities and activities was illegal under its interpretation of federal sex discrimination laws. But the new guidance, for the first time, offers advice for accommodating the privacy needs of nontransgender youngsters.

Citing guidelines adopted by Washington, New York, the District of Columbia and Atherton High School in Louisville, Kentucky, President Barack Obama’s Education Department said schools could erect privacy curtains in changing areas, permit all students to make use of single-stall restrooms or work out other case-by-case arrangements as long as the burden doesn’t rest exclusively on transgender students.

“The concerns for right to privacy and safety of children applies to every single child, including the transgender child,” said Atherton’s principal, Thomas Aberli, who faced community opposition when he first allowed a transgender freshman to use the girls’ restrooms two years ago. Since that first student, about a half-dozen more have come out as transgender, Aberli said.

Asaf Orr, a lawyer who directs the Transgender Youth Project Staff at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said the guidance could help temper the transgender rights backlash that the restroom issue has engendered in states such as North Carolina by showing that minority rights and privacy rights can co-exist if schools respect all students’ need to be comfortable.

At least 13 states and the District of Columbia prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity in schools. Hundreds of school districts, from Anchorage, Alaska, and Tucson, Arizona, to Fairfax County, Virginia and Chicago, have adopted similar protections.

Nearly two dozen state high school sports federations have adopted rules governing the participation of transgender athletes on competitive teams, including the ones in South Dakota, Maryland and Nevada.

In Portland, Oregon, Lincoln High Principal Peyton Chapman recalls the “challenging times” about seven years when a transgender student who identified as female transferred there after being bullied at her previous school. The student made the cheerleading squad and “bathroom and locker rooms became an immediate issue with the cheerleading parents,” she said.

An anti-bullying campaign that focused on the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity diffused the situation, Chapman said. “Some students may be uncomfortable with it, but we can’t let some people’s discomfort violate other people’s civil rights,” she said.

But there was a high level of discomfort as soon as the directive came out, with officials in several states saying they would defy the administration. The rallying cry was against what Mississippi’s Republican governor said was the federal government’s “forcing a liberal agenda on states that roundly reject it.”

While the guidance is not legally binding and the Supreme Court may ultimately decide whether federal civil rights law protects transgender people, schools refusing to comply could face lawsuits from the government and a cutoff of federal aid to education.

obamapointing

Even in areas of the country where such policies enjoy broad support, putting them into practice can be complicated. The Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference allows transgender students to play on teams that match their gender identities. Since the policy took effect in 2013, a few transgender boys have played on boys’ high school teams, said Karissa Niehoff, the group’s executive director.

Niehoff said that since the state has a policy prohibiting boys from playing on girls’ teams, a transgender girl would be allowed to play on a girls’ team, but not a boys’ team. She said students are allowed to establish eligibility to compete under a different gender once during their school careers to prevent players from bouncing between teams.

So far, there have been no complaints, she said. “But had somebody said to us, ‘Hey, you have a transgender playing on the team and we think there is a physical disadvantage, well we support that student,” she said.

Boston’s public schools require staff members to use the names and pronouns requested by students, change school records to reflect them and acknowledge they’ve read the district’s policy regarding transgender students, according to Steven Chen, the senior equity manager.

But sometimes there are mistakes. “If you’ve known a student for the first three years as one name and one pronoun, and then in year four the student has a different name and a different pronoun, I think just naturally you might make a mistake,” he said. “Honest mistakes are much different than affirmatively saying, ‘I’m not going to support my students on this.’”

DCG