The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether regular marijuana users can legally own firearms, following a 2022 decision that expanded gun rights. The case involves a Texas man charged with a felony for possessing a gun while admitting to regular marijuana use, with the Justice Department appealing a lower court’s decision that struck down the ban. The government argues the ban is a justifiable restriction, while the defense argues it puts millions at risk due to varying state laws regarding marijuana. This case is another test of the Supreme Court’s new approach to firearm restrictions, which requires restrictions to have a strong historical grounding.
Read More
Voting Rights Act faces a near-death experience at US Supreme Court
The specter of “taxation without representation” hangs heavy over the discussion of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The very foundation of a democratic society is challenged when the ability to choose representatives is undermined, and gerrymandering, with its power to distort the democratic process, is at the heart of the problem. This is a battleground where the Supreme Court’s decisions will have far-reaching consequences.
The Supreme Court, particularly the current, conservative-leaning majority, is seen by many as actively working towards solidifying Republican power. There’s a palpable sense of urgency, with speculation swirling about the timing of any ruling.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court is projected to exhaust its funding on October 18, leading to a public closure of the building, though essential operations will continue. Federal courts are anticipated to run out of funds by October 20, prompting the continuation of essential activities, though staff may not be paid. Jury programs and the Public Access to Court Electronic Records will remain operational, and courts can use existing funds for limited additional work. Individual courts will decide case schedules, and the duration of the shutdown remains uncertain due to ongoing political disagreements.
Read More
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed in 2020, stated the Supreme Court lacks the power to enforce its rulings if a president chooses to ignore them, lacking the “power of the purse” and “power of the sword.” She discussed her legal theory of originalism and the ongoing debate surrounding executive power, specifically referencing the “unitary executive theory.” Barrett acknowledged that the court often makes decisions along partisan lines, though she maintains she is “nobody’s justice.” During the interview, she was hesitant to discuss what the court’s role might be in the face of an executive challenging its authority.
Read More
The United States is currently embroiled in a battle over partisan gerrymandering, with Republican-controlled legislatures redrawing districts to favor their party. This practice has led to calls for action, including a proposed ballot measure in California that would temporarily suspend the state’s independent redistricting commission. Despite overwhelming public disapproval of partisan gerrymandering, the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, has ruled against federal intervention in these cases, effectively allowing such practices to continue. This decision has exacerbated the issue, giving Republicans an advantage in the House and potentially hindering the democratic process. In response, California voters now have the opportunity to counteract these effects, which could shift the balance of power.
Read More
While Trump’s efforts to influence redistricting have had limited success, the Supreme Court’s potential ruling in *Louisiana v. Callais* poses a far greater threat. Oral arguments suggest the Court may severely weaken or dismantle Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, allowing states to draw racially discriminatory maps. This could lead to a significant shift, potentially costing Democrats numerous seats and solidifying Republican control of the House. Consequently, the Supreme Court’s actions hold the potential to reshape the political landscape, potentially outweighing the impacts of gerrymandering efforts by Trump and state-level Republicans.
Read More
During arguments in *Louisiana v. Callais*, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices appeared poised to weaken Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, potentially impacting Black political representation. The case examines how race can be used in drawing congressional maps, with the Trump administration arguing that partisan considerations should supersede racial discrimination claims. This approach could make it nearly impossible to bring future Section 2 cases, allowing Republican legislatures to redraw maps and potentially achieving the goal of one-party rule. A ruling in this vein could lead to the elimination of numerous majority-minority districts, particularly in the South, potentially before the 2026 elections.
Read More
The Supreme Court has declined to hear Alex Jones’ appeal of the $1.4 billion judgment against him, stemming from his false claims that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a hoax. Jones, who was found liable for defaming and inflicting emotional distress upon the victims’ families, argued that he should have been granted a trial before a judge issued a default judgment against him. The court’s rejection means the massive judgment, awarded by a Connecticut jury in 2022, will stand, alongside a nearly $50 million judgment from a Texas court.
Read More
The Supreme Court has upheld the $1.4 billion judgment against Alex Jones for his false claims that the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a hoax. Jones had appealed, arguing a trial should have been held to assess the allegations by the victims’ families; however, the justices did not comment on their order. Jones filed for bankruptcy and is also appealing a separate $49 million judgment in Texas. Currently, the liquidation of Infowars’ assets is underway, with efforts to sell off assets moving to a Texas state court.
Read More
The Supreme Court is poised to dismantle campaign finance restrictions, potentially eliminating limits on donations and hindering bribery prosecutions. A new book, “Master Plan,” details a decades-long conservative strategy to deregulate campaign finance, culminating in the *Citizens United* decision. Two specific cases, including one backed by J.D. Vance, could allow party committees to become conduits for large donations, and weaken anti-bribery laws. These efforts aim to make it increasingly difficult to prosecute public corruption, allowing for influence peddling.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood