Travel Bans, Gay Wedding Cakes, Gun Rights, and Border Shootings: Special All Supreme Court P.M. Links

|

  • Supreme Court
    Gary Blakeley

    Today was the Supreme Court's final day of releasing orders and decisions for the term, and it was a bit of a doozy. Top news: The court allowed most of President Donald Trump's travel ban to take effect except in cases of those who have "bona fide" relationships with the United States. This is not a "ruling," though. It's a temporary lifting of the injunction until they hear the case in October.

  • The Supreme Court also ruled that Missouri cannot refuse to grant public funds to a church simply because it is a religious institution, as this is a violation of the free exercise clause of the Constitution. The case was about whether a church could have access to a grant to help pay the costs of resurfacing a playground.
  • The Supreme Court also decided it will hear whether a baker can, due to his religious beliefs, refuse to bake and sell a wedding cake to same-sex couples.
  • The Supreme Court also decided it would refuse to hear a case from California to rule on whether the Second Amendment protected the right to carry firearms in public.
  • Rather than deciding whether the family of a Mexican teenager killed by a federal agent can sue over a fatal shooting that took place across the U.S.-Mexico border, the Supreme Court kicked it back down to a lower court.
  • The Supreme Court also struck down a law in Arkansas that caused officials to refuse to list both members of same-sex couples as parents on birth certificates. Note that the law does allow for non-biological fathers to be listed as parents in heterosexual cases, so this wasn't a matter of actual genetic parentage.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

NEXT: Jake Tapper: 'We Are Not the Resistance, We Are Not the Opposition'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Top news: The court allowed most of President Donald Trump’s travel ban to take effect except in cases of those who have “bona fide” relationships with the United States.

    VICTORY AND VINDICATION.

    1. Hello.

      Ha. Trump wins again.

    2. VICTORY AND VINDICATION.

      Actually, thus far, I do feel vindicated. In that it seems unlikely it’ll be unanimously overruled and that, for a malevolent Washington outsider with zero knowledge of how to run our government, it’s like he’s not even really trying to be unconstitutional. I mean, he’s got a pen and a phone, what more does he need?

      1. Why call them the executive if we don’t want them to execute?

      2. Besides a pen and a phone and a phone, he has the straightforward English text of part (f) of 8 U.S. Code ? 1182 – Inadmissible aliens:

        (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

        Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

        1. That does make it pretty clear. The question remains as to whether applications of that law could be unconstitutional if the classes of people are religiously defined. But I don’t even think that’s really relevant to this. It’s not really a Muslim ban as most of the world’s Muslims are still as free to travel here as they were before.

          1. I get his words on the campaign trail are damning, but the top five Muslims countries in the world aren’t on the ban, so this hits me as a massive straw man.

            Also, it seems to me that all those countries probably require some extra vetting since they are third world holes whose citizens probably have good cause to dislike the rate at which we shwack their friends and relatives (aiming for satire not /sarc)

  2. This is not a “ruling,” though.

    That ain’t bona fide.

  3. The Supreme Court also decided it will hear whether a baker can, due to his religious beliefs, refuse to bake and sell a wedding cake to same-sex couples.

    Well, he can. It’s whether he may.

  4. The Supreme Court also decided it would refuse to hear a case from California to rule on whether the Second Amendment protected the right to carry firearms in public.

    They’re busy lawyers. They don’t have all day to sit around and listen people arguing.

  5. The case was about whether a church could have access to a grant to help pay the costs of resurfacing a playground.

    You know who else resurfaced?

    1. Not Richard Simmons.

    2. Jacques Cousteau?

    3. Whitey Bulger?

    4. Courteney Cox?

    5. Whoever buried Jimmy Hoffa?

    6. Jesse and Gojira?

    7. The Shredder?

    8. Captain Nemo?

      1. Aw cute, when did the little fish become a captain?

    9. Elvis Presley?

  6. Rather than deciding whether the family of a Mexican teenager killed by a federal agent can sue over a fatal shooting that took place across the U.S.-Mexico border, the Supreme Court kicked it back down to a lower court.

    Who then built a wall around it and ignored the whole thing.

    1. If we had a wall it would protect Mexicans from evil American bullets.

    2. Let’s put air conditioners on the wall and pump all the hot air into Mexico.

      1. Smell our BTUs!

    3. This isn’t even a question. We can’t even sue our local police for a wrongful shooting, and we’re citizens.

    4. “The Border Patrol changed its use-of-force policies in the wake of Hernandez’s death and other controversial cross-border shootings of alleged rock throwers. Agents are now urged, if at all possible, to move out of range of thrown projectiles.”
      Can they still shoot their dogs?

      1. Doesn’t even seem worth it to patrol the border. Border Patrol would probably even get in trouble for no-knock flash bang grenade baby-burn incident.

  7. Note that the law does allow for non-biological fathers to be listed as parents in heterosexual cases, so this wasn’t a matter of actual genetic parentage.

    You’re not the damn paterfamilias.

    1. I think we all know what movie Eugene saw last night.

      1. If the phrase bona fide doesn’t make you think of that, then I don’t even know who you are anymore.

        1. So you’re saying Citizen X should stay out of the Woolworth’s?

          1. Not sure if it was just the one location, or the entire chain.

      2. Impolex?

    2. First 7 posts Fist. Calm down man. You’ve shown your dominance already.

      1. Not until I smell submissive urination from the each of the rest of the commentariat.

  8. Special All Supreme Court P.M. Links

    Like there’s nothing else going on in the world, REASON.

      1. I want Christopher Walken to narrate that news story.

        1. …or a Japanese school girl…. horrified giggling should help

  9. The Supreme Court also decided it would refuse to hear a case from California to rule on whether the Second Amendment protected the right to carry firearms in public.

    Don’t you think this is a good thing though? If they had heard it, chances are they would have upheld the decision. Now, it can come up in a future court, which may overturn it.

    1. I think the anti-gun wing of the court is punting. Their reasoning is that if they rule that an ordinary person has a right to carry guns in public, then they’ll be committing an act of Treason Against Civilization Itself. But if they do the proper thing and rule the other way, doing their best to strike down then 2nd Amendment as unconstitutional, then the Bitter Clingers will riot and transform America into a lawless barbaric nation. So they punt, doing their best to put off the evil day for as long as possible.

    1. What the fuck, Florida, what the fuck? They are truly America’s dick.

    2. Six-Toe County…

    3. Clearwater, eh? Another scientologist went non-linear?

      -jcr

  10. So nothing on the Sargon v. Sarkeesian VidCon drama? Geeze, what kind of world are we living in. Reason should be all over GamerGate drama, its totes libertarian.

    1. Glad you mentioned this so I could go check it out. Sargon is a gentleman fighting against petty authoritarianism for all of us, he should have Reason’s support. The man’s who arguments are balanced upon morality and rationalism.

      1. Every time I end up reading about these video game controversies I conclude that we all should die. Everyone on all sides. There’s nothing of value here, we should all just pass from this Earth. It’s sad that I haven’t finished Persona 5 yet, but oh well, we should still all die.

        1. *signs up for suicide pact*

          Though this current Sargon v. Sarkeesian thing (as OBJ puts it), is not about video games.

          1. The mass death is still completely warranted.

        2. Why do we have to die? They’re the ones who suck.

      2. Are you fucking serious??

        (that’s the extent of my Sargon impression)

        1. Eh… idk, every Sargon vid I’ve seen seems to come from the same place of valued ideals as Reason’s content.

          I personally feel that I’m drawn to Sargon for the exact same reasons I am drawn to Reason.com — I enjoy a discussion of ideas that do not hide from nor are they derived from dogmatic, tribalistic platitudes. A discussion of ideas that truly attempt to adhere to objectivity rather than just a lip service of objective reasoning (though I feel a certain level of subjectivity remains in all human interaction).

          1. Subjectivity is core. The big question is are you arguing axiomatically. That is, do you have some axiomatic base that you try to derive your beliefs from.

            I believe many do not, unless we consider party loyalty to be an axiom.

            1. The axioms are subjective, so I don’t get the point here.

          2. As I often say, we are all a lot less rational than we like to think. People are really good at convincing themselves that what they want to believe is obviously the thing that all smart, logical people should believe.

            Even with a supposedly axiomatic belief system, I think there are generally a lot of tacit assumptions and logical leaps.

            I still think that what I believe is the right thing, or at least pretty good to go on.

          3. He seems like an OK liberal guy, but I find his commentary is generally 20 minute videos asking incredulously, “Are you fucking serious?”

      3. Sargon is a gentleman fighting against petty authoritarianism

        No, he’s not. He’s an asshole looking for attention wherever he can find it. The fact that he’s butting heads with another asshole doesn’t make him a gentleman.

        You probably don’t remember, but soggy used to essentially make a Tony of himself in various Libertarian forums around the net.

        -jcr

  11. whether the Second Amendment protected the right to carry firearms in public.

    “You have the right to practice your religion, but not in public.”

    1. You have the right to print what you want, as long as no one actually sees it.

      1. You have the right to delegate powers to the state as long as they are not explicitly delegated in the Constitution, as long as no one is aware of it.

        1. You have the right to vote for whoever you want, as long as it doesn?t change shit.

  12. SCOTUSblog? Verified account

    SCOTUS lifts injunction against travel ban, except with respect to individuals with bona dude relationship to the US

    1. The Chinaman is not the issue!

      1. All right, can we all get together and get Bear some new movies?

        1. Sorry! I finally got my oldest son to watch it, and we have been steadily quoting it for days!

    2. You know who else wanted to bone a dude?

      (The answer is actually Ernst Roehm.. but you know she wanted to bone?)

  13. Regarding the Arkansas birth certificate decision, the law isn’t quite what is made out here. The state law specifies that the birth mother will be the “mother” on the certificate and that if she is married at the time of conception or birth, then her husband is listed as the “father”. The exception for non-husband father only applies if the mother, the husband and the “putative father” all sign affidavits swearing to the paternity of the putative father.

    IOW the birth certificate is merely ascribing parentage to the mother (obvious) and the presumed father. That is it.
    Now, perhaps the people of the State of Arkansas should push their legislature to change the law for the birth certificate requirements. But this is NOT directly related to the “constellations” of marriage as upheld by Obergfell.

    1. Sorry, also regarding artificial insemination, when it is anonymous, then the woman’s husband is the presumed father for purposes of the birth certificate.

      BTW: Read Gorsuch’s dissent. It is short, and quite to the point.

  14. Unusual alliance: Pot smokers and Koch network

    http://www.denverpost.com/2017…..-on-drugs/

    Reporter is mystified that Koch Brothers stand for something they’ve always stood for. Presumably because all the reporter ever reads is fundraising hit pieces instead of the actual words of the actual target.

    1. I fought the drugs and the drugs won.

    2. Fundraising hit pieces are the Left’s training manuals. What else would you have him read?

    3. It would be interesting to ask people who rally hard against the Koch brothers if they could name a single piece of policy the Kochs support.

  15. The 2nd Amendment and self-defense in California?

    Security footage shows the moment two robbers broke into a Brentwood, California home and were shot dead by the owner.

    The video, which was released by neighbor Reggie Nichols, shows the two men entering the home on the 200 block of Birch Street a little after 11pm on June 21.

    Shortly after entering, flashes of light are seen inside the garage as the homeowner shoots at the two.

    Police say they do not plan to charge him as he acted in self defense.

    1. I count 4 shots at two perps. I put the likelihood he’s an officer of the law somewhere below 20%.

      1. Good point – he did exhibit better accuracy than the LASD recently did, that’s for sure.

  16. The “right” is just is bananas as the “left”:

    During the 30th anniversary, speakeasy-themed gala, the William F. Buckley Jr. Award for Media Excellence will be presented to Sean Hannity.

    LOL.

    1. Whether or not someone agrees with Limbaugh’s positions, at least it can be said that he was (is) entertaining and really did pioneer what talk radio has become.

      Hannity is just fucking BORING. The same shtick every day.

      1. I rarely see someone suck the establishment’s dick with such enthusiasm.

        It’s like he doesn’t have opinions other than party lines.

  17. Dog elected mayor

    http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com…..dog-mayor/

    1. Dog elected mayor

      Faux libertarians laugh. Real libertarians recognize that any time a dog is forced to participate in a mayoral election, it’s rape.

      1. ^^^woke^^^

  18. I am confused.

    Temporary 120 day ban was blocked for 200(?) days and now reinstated for about a year as they hear arguments in October and issue a ruling next year.

    Does D.C. use a different definition of temporary than everyone else? Definitely a different calendar. This travel ban should be moot by now.

  19. “The Supreme Court also decided it would refuse to hear a case”

    So it hasn’t refused yet, merely decided to refuse at some future date?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.