IMHO: I think the Justices across the board may have earned their keep with this discussion. The "Reckless Standard" proposed as a middle ground to bring speakers to justice for their speech if it causes fear or intimidation is a good one. Ashamedly I can speak from experience on this as I myself have said things in the heat of a moment that were viewed in our workplace as intimidation. In my defense I argued successfully that I was provoked with intimidating speech to make my remarks. But spoken or written "free speech" needs some guardrails. Many individuals may be profoundly more susceptible to fear than others of us realize. Accountability is a cornerstone of Democracy. CASES EMERGENCY DOCKET PETITIONS STATISTICS NEWSFEED ABOUT ARGUMENT ANALYSIS Justices hear “true threat” protected speech case By Amy Howe on Apr 20, 2023 at 3:24 pm FacebookLinkedInTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare Man at lectern as audience and justices listen in. John Elwood arguing fo
Posts
Well the saying goes, "Death and Taxes" so the 2023 Rant rounds out with death. Two graphs to scare the general population into believing the doom of America is on the shoulders of the American Seniors. Damn them for living so long and eating up so much money and space of the rest of US! What the pictures show also and fail to explain or even address is the incredible and highly noticeable flat line or reduction of the age group 19-34 i.e. the Military Age Group. Or the age group that is decimated by the wars Our Country fights and sends our Children home in body bags with 21 gun salutes. It is a horrendous thought, but one I can not put aside. The "Right to Life Movement" is it a corruption of religious belief to fill the 1%'s need to replace these missing, dying, sacrificed on the altar of "America" 18-34 year old youth? So that they can continue in their reclusive and protected position of power? Abraham Lincoln face this question neigh 200 year
Peter's Rant for 2023 Tax Season Because Money Just Rubs Me the Wrong Way Usury (/ˈjuːʒəri/)[1][2] is the practice of making unethical or immoral monetary loans that unfairly enrich the lender. The term may be used in a moral sense—condemning taking advantage of others' misfortunes—or in a legal sense, where an interest rate is charged in excess of the maximum rate that is allowed by law. A loan may be considered usurious because of excessive or abusive interest rates or other factors defined by the laws of a state. Someone who practices usury can be called a usurer, but in modern colloquial English may be called a loan shark. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury IMHO: As I open my daily mail and read the plethora of Credit Card offers I always turn to the interest rate that will be charged. After the very glamorous 6,12,18 months 0% "introductory rate" which will cost 5% of the transfer to initiate. i.e. 3 months of the "0 percent 'free' loan. AND the
IMHO: This complete failure of SCOTUS to hear and decide in favor of the plaintiff of this case underscores both the Courts failure to read the language of the Constitution and their now often framework of "Historical" setting of the Framers. The punishment of Solitary Confinement was absolutely not unknown to the Framers. And IMHO was exactly one of the 'cruel and unusual' punishments they had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. 27 MONTHS of solitary would constitute 'cruel and unusual' punishment ... 27 YEARS is TORTURE and STATE TERRORISM. 3 minute readApril 17, 20238:39 AM MSTLast Updated 2 hours ago U.S. Supreme Court turns away suit by Texas inmate held 27 years in solitary confinement By John Kruzel Supreme Court is seen in Washington [1/2] U.S. Supreme Court is seen during morning hours in Washington, U.S., February 22, 2023. REUTERS/Tom Brenner WASHINGTON, April 17 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal from
IMHO: This is case highlights the "Human Conditions." On the one hand Congress has written Laws. On the other hand Law recipients' read those Laws in different lights. The issue IMHO seems to be the plaintiffs status as "Permanent Legal Resident" and the justice of removing them from the Nation or the injustice for removing them after allowing them to continue in this status for so many years. Whether the 'cruel and unusual' punishment of removal after so many years is the result of one Citizen Group bent on hatred of immigration and the twisting of connotation of Congressional verbiage: OR Whether Congressional verbiage was written with intent to be ambiguous. There "is a hole in the bucket, dear Liza dear Liza. So fix it dear Henry dear Henry!" The question to me is: "Why is a Legal Permanent Resident allowed to continue in this state of limbo for such an unreasonably long time?" "There is a limit of 5 years until Perman
IMHO: The real question here is, "Who is funding" the teacher John Kluge to pursue a case that is taking up the time and resources of so many. i.e. Himself, who should know the obvious answer to his complaint as it is written in the 1st Amendment the Governments need to keep itself separate from his religious beliefs is paramount to the Governing Principle of the United States in order to Protect his right to continue to worship as he pleases in non-government surroundings. The State who is footing the bills for the Judges and the courtrooms to facilitate his spotlight on himself for as yet unrevealed hidden agenda reasons. The Courts, who are taking time to hear his plea, when they could be employed settling much more pressing legal questions. The People who are beset with hearing yet again from the reactionary Christian religious community that they are the 'pursecuted' when to many of us on the sidelines, they appear to be much more 'the persecutors.' 2 m
This case from SCOTUS.BLOG is an interesting one for a law scholar. IMHO the Justices will earn their keep writing their decisions on this case. I hope they decide for the Government here. In my view Congress in the wake of financial collapse of Wall Street acts in good faith to create oversight and penalties for money traders. It is IMHO the pure design of money traders to invent new ways around the laws Congress makes for their self interest of making money. And therfor Congress acting in The Peoples' behalf to protect The Peoples' 'Happiness' in their hard earned money is well founded. It is my worry that the present SCOTUS with it's Super Funded Republican backers will side for the Wall Street Hounds and their circumnavigation of Congress' law and not We the People and our at risk 401k's. CASES EMERGENCY DOCKET PETITIONS STATISTICS NEWSFEED ABOUT PETITIONS OF THE WEEK Another federal agency challenges adverse ruling by 5th Circuit By Kalvis
IMHO: This case exemplifies why the Death Penalty should be put away in all the States by Constitutional, or Congressional reform. For the following reasons. One, the Constitutional prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment." In this 21st Century wherein the United States incarcerates more Citizens per capita than any other Nation in the World denying Life Imprisonment poses no hardship on the Government. Therefor the infliction of Death is a step taken by the Government solely for Retribution. And I hold Retribution is a "cruel and unusual" and wholly unsupportable position for an all powerful Government to hold over it's Citizens. Two, if the argument that the majority of the United States citizenry is of a Christian religious belief it is in direct opposition to the teachings of the Christ to exact "an eye for an eye" where He called for "Love your enemy." As He said, "What is it worth to love only those who love you? Even the wi