MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Gorsuch and Sotomayor Fault SCOTUS for Declining to Hear Important Criminal Justice Case

The two jurists dissent from denial of certiorari in Stuart v. Alabama.

C-SPANC-SPANToday the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an important case dealing with forensic evidence, criminal trials, and the Sixth Amendment right of defendants to confront their accusers. Writing in dissent, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, criticized the Court for turning a blind eye to such constitutional malfeasance.

The case is Stuart v. Alabama. Here's how Gorsuch summarized the stakes in his dissent from denial of certiorari:

To prove Vanessa Stuart was driving under the influence, the State of Alabama introduced in evidence the results of a blood-alcohol test conducted hours after her arrest. But the State refused to bring to the stand the analyst who performed the test. Instead, the State called a different analyst. Using the results of the test after her arrest and the rate at which alcohol is metabolized, this analyst sought to estimate for the jury Ms. Stuart's blood-alcohol level hours earlier when she was driving. Through these steps, the State effectively denied Ms. Stuart the chance to confront the witness who supplied a foundational piece of evidence in her conviction.

As Gorsuch noted, the Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine one's accusers is supposed to serve as a safeguard in cases like this against the introduction of erroneous evidence. Yet here "the engine of cross-examination was left unengaged, and the Sixth Amendment was violated." For that reason, and others, Gorsuch and Sotomayor faulted their colleagues for failing to take the case.

This is not the first time that Gorsuch and Sotomayor have joined forces on the criminal justice front. Just last month, for example, during oral arguments in Gundy v. U.S., the two justices seemed to agree that Congress violated the Constitution by, in Gorsuch's words, giving "a blank check to the attorney general." They've also been operating on similar wavelengths in Fourth Amendment cases.

While it's common nowadays to think of the Supreme Court exclusively in terms of its conservative and liberal blocs, Gorsuch and Sotomayor have shown that the story is more complicated when it comes to questions of criminal justice.

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.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Was this the only evidence against her? Or did she crash into a bus stop, killing 3?

  • Sevo||

    If so, charge her with reckless driving. If she's to be charged with DUI, that has to be shown.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Reckless driving does not get those large fines and drunk driving stigma like a DUI conviction does.

    Reckless driving is a pretty shady offense too. Most of the driving rules are very specific. Improper lane change is easy to quantify.

    For Georgia:
    O.C.G.A. 40-6-390 (2010)
    40-6-390. Reckless driving
    (a) Any person who drives any vehicle in reckless disregard for the safety of persons or property commits the offense of reckless driving.
    (b) Every person convicted of reckless driving shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 or imprisonment not to exceed 12 months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, provided that no provision of this Code section shall be construed so as to deprive the court imposing the sentence of the power given by law to stay or suspend the execution of such sentence or to place the defendant on probation.

  • Rat on a train||

    Reckless driving is a pretty shady offense too.
    Come to Virginia. We have both subjective and objective reckless driving.

    § 46.2-862. Exceeding speed limit.
    A person shall be guilty of reckless driving who drives a motor vehicle on the highways in the Commonwealth (i) at a speed of twenty miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit or (ii) in excess of eighty miles per hour regardless of the applicable maximum speed limit.

    § 46.2-868. Reckless driving; penalties.

    A. Every person convicted of reckless driving under the provisions of this article is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

    § 18.2-11. Punishment for conviction of misdemeanor.
    The authorized punishments for conviction of a misdemeanor are:

    (a) For Class 1 misdemeanors, confinement in jail for not more than twelve months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.


    Watch out in those 70 mph zones.

  • Chipper Jonze||

    In Georgia doing 84 in a 70 gets you NO points and, since they don't have to report it to the state your insurance company probably won't find out either. Now 85/70 invokes "Super Speeder" which is a separate after-the-fact $200 fine that would be considered double jeopardy if the "driving is a privilege" thingy wasn't invoked.

  • WoodChipperBob||

    It's the 55 mph zones that you really need to watch out in - 76 in a 55 is reckless driving.

  • ||

    Why do we assume that the person who performed the test, hours after the accident, was a witness? It sounds like, at best, they were giving expert testimony and were, realistically, giving the jury a textbook lesson in biochemistry/mathematics.

    Of course, I didn't hear the testimony so I can't say for sure but it seems like their job was to walk the jury through their homework, not damnably testify as an expert that the alcohol caused her to crash.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    The person who tests the blood to determine the BAC is not a witness? That's the most crucial evidence in a case like this, and the actual person who did the test needs to testify.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    But Bill in testing is always drunk so he can't take the stand. Best if the use Sheryl.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Yeah. Or mistake prone. Or has a tendency to shade their results so as to be a part of Team Prosecution.

  • Number 2||

    You miss the point. The purpose of having the person who performed the test testify isn't to explain the testing procedures generally or explain how alcohol causes crashes. It's to testify as a fact witness that the test was conducted properly, that all necessary procedures were followed, and that the positive result came from the sample that the defendant provided, (chain of custody).

    This is no small matter. Thousands of convictions here in New Jersey are being thrown out because the official who certified that proper procedures were followed lied.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "Thousands of convictions here in New Jersey are being thrown out because the official who certified that proper procedures were followed lied."

    When the dust finally settles in that case, it could be several tens of thousands of cases. (the last number i saw as as many as 20,000 cases).

    All because one state police sergeant falsified calibration records for Brethalizer machines for 3 counties.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Those fucking government crooks wont return the fines paid or reimburse for attorney's fee either.

  • fdog50||

    That's true. It surprises me that the blood test was even admitted without the person who performed the test because it would not have a complete chain of custody from the time of the draw until the completion of the test. Unless the defendant stipulates to chain of custody, that must be shown to preserve the integrity of the evidence.

  • Ben of Houston||

    Chain of custody should be included fully in the lab report

  • DesigNate||

    They aren't just being asked expert witness testimony though, they're being asked to extrapolate the lab results to determine sobriety at the time of the arrest.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    For a DUI conviction, yes, it probably was the only real evidence.

  • TuIpa||

    In this thread, Tony starts a grammar argument, loses, and then lies about starting the grammar argument he lost.

  • DesigNate||

    Sotomayor has been a pleasant surprise on the criminal justice front considering who nominated her. But she actually served on the criminal court bench, if memory serves, so that actually makes sense.

  • Idle Hands||

    She's not all bad. Which is more than you can say for most of the nazgul.

  • Agammamon||

    Thanks Obama!

    That may be the only circumstance where I'll ever type that seriously.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump is batting a thousand with Gorsuch.

  • Delius||

    Like Trump had anything to do with it. A name was put in front of him, and he said, "Whatever, so long as he votes with me when my trial gets there."

  • BigT||

    Being humble enough to ask for help is half the battle.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump could have rejected those on the list.

    Senate also deserves credit for confirming him.

  • CLM1227||

    I know, right! He could have nominated his sister.

  • Idle Hands||

    Gorsuch is as advertised.

  • Juice||

    Now we just need 4 or more of him.

  • Longtobefree||

    So how does this affect the use of traffic cameras?
    I have never seen a camera cross-examined.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Thats why those traffic cameras should be inadmissible.

    Many jurisdictions require that cops of bureaucrats offer the camera pictures into evidence, so you can cross-examine them even though they never took the pictures or can prove who the driver was.

  • Ben of Houston||

    Even if they are unusable, they need to be introduced into evidence if they exist. The fact that they say nothing is important, even if it's only for purposes of transparency.

  • Dillinger||

    never pay a camera fine.

  • Juice||

    Yeah, round these parts it's like a ferreal ticket. You'll get your ass reamed, your license suspended, and your credit ruined if you don't pay. And don't even bother contesting it. Even if they're wrong, they don't care. There's nothing you can do about it. It's a major source of revenue for them, so fuck you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Ask for a trial. When the agency refuses, file a lawsuit.

    Demand a jury trial for the crime you are accused of, as the Constitution requires.

  • Juice||

    Ask for a trial. When the agency refuses, file a lawsuit.

    LOL

    $100 ticket vs $1500 retainer for a lawyer to file a law suit that you'll 100% certainly lose.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Represent yourself. Its free.

  • Nuwanda||

    Damn straight. Don't give it away so easily. What have you got to lose?

    There are countries where the law requires amounts be in the thousands of dollars before a jury trial is allowed. This is done, supposedly, for the purposes of cost and efficiency. But it removes the ability for a citizen to be judged by their fellow citizens who may decide contrary to the letter of the law and acquit.

    If you still have the right to stand before a jury, even for a minor infraction, use it.

  • vek||

    Where I live, all you have to do is claim you were not driving the car at the time and they are required to remove the ticket. They also cannot charge the person you claim was driving AFAIK. So it's basically a cake walk to get out of them. Somehow I've managed to not get a single one, despite going through some yellows/reds in sketchy traffic a few times I would think would have got me some.

  • Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland||

    Sotomayor is the most libertarian justice on the bench. You backwater-swilling rubes might not understand that, but she's the real deal. Of course, once most of flyover "country" has been reduced to rubble (as it should be), some of you might start questioning the monster you helped get elected.

    That being said, most of you will continue mocking the Resistance. In any other context, a libertarian movement dedicated to challenging the government would be seen as a good thing. But you hicks are too dumb to understand the sort of authoritarianism you're enabling.

  • Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland||

    And don't even try to cite this as proof of Gorsuch's value. He's still a thug who swindled Merrick Garland out of a Supreme Court seat. The real credit goes to Sotomayor, but she's a Hispanic, so libertarians naturally value her voice less than Gorsuch's. Typical.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Who's Merrrick Garland?

  • Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland||

    An honest man, something Trumpertarians like you wouldn't understand.

  • Sevo||

    "Who's Merrrick Garland?"

    Some twit beloved of lefty assholes, like this one.

  • Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland||

    That "twit" has more honor than you or Drumpf ever will.

  • Sevo||

    Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland|11.19.18 @ 12:36PM|#
    "That "twit" has more honor than you or Drumpf ever will."

    Lefty asshole, here's what your idiotic opinions are worth: 0
    Fuck off

  • Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland||

    My opinions, which are actually facts, don't care about your feelings, yokel.

  • Sevo||

    Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland|11.19.18 @ 12:51PM|#
    "My opinions, which are actually facts"

    So now you're lying on top of it.
    Fuck off, ignoramus.

  • Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland||

    Go back to The Daily Wire, Nazi.

  • Lester224||

    The Pastor is not a real lefty. He's a Republican trying to make liberals look bad.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    You need more words if you want to mansplain.

  • Juice||

    Who's Merrrick Garland?

    The guy who just got confirmed as a justice. Oh wait, that was Brett Kavanaugh. Sorry, I couldn't tell the difference between the two.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "He's still a thug who swindled Merrick Garland out of a Supreme Court seat."

    Gorsuch did no such thing. All he did was accept a nomination.

    Yeah, Sotomayor has been good on criminal justice stuff.
    And Gorsuch so far has shown himself to be quite libertarian.

    Hilarious that you notice the former but won't admit the latter because Gorsuch was nominated by the WRONG TEAM, while simultaneously grousing at the other side because they do the same fucking thing in reverse. Remove the plank from your own eye before you criticize your neighbor for the splinter in theirs. Fucking hypocrite.

  • Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland||

    "Gorsuch did no such thing. All he did was accept a nomination."

    Hitler never gassed anyone to death. He just allowed his supporters to do so.

    Keep talking, cretin.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "Hitler never gassed anyone to death. He just allowed his supporters to do so."

    Hitler was responsible for the policy. Gorsuch was not.

    This has to be a finalist for Worst Analogy of the Year.

    Garland never saw a cop who couldn't be trusted, and you're pissed because you'd rather have a pro-cop TEAM BLUE guy on the court instead of someone who might actually try to make the government behave. Some Libertarian...…..

  • Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland||

    "Garland never saw a cop who couldn't be trusted..."

    Are we talking about Drumpf, you bumpkin?

    The worst Democrat is one million times better than the best Republican, which might as well be the best skinhead.

  • Sevo||

    Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland|11.19.18 @ 12:44PM|#
    "The worst Democrat is one million times better than the best Republican, which might as well be the best skinhead."

    And that D is more than willing to support mass murder, you fucking ignoramus

  • Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland||

    "And that D is more than willing to support mass murder, you fucking ignoramus"

    D is short for Donald, right?

  • Sevo||

    Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland|11.19.18 @ 12:50PM|#
    "D is short for Donald, right?"

    I'd expect a fucking ignoramus to be lacking in reading comprehension.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    No, we're talking about Garland. You've now admitted that you're not a libertarian. You'd rather have a Democrat-nominated cop lover on the bench than someone who looks like they're disposed toward actual liberty. You're a Democrat. And discussing stuff with you is as fruitful as discussing stuff with loveconstitution. No point in it because your objectivity is wrecked by your adherence to your team. Goodbye.

  • Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland||

    Another fascist libertarian scared of the facts.

    I win.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Only in your own fevered imagination.

    PS: Why the switch from Rev. to Pastor?

  • BYODB||


    PS: Why the switch from Rev. to Pastor?


    Because P.B. needed a new sock.

  • TuIpa||

    Yeah, I really don't understand how people can't see that this is obviously PB.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Tulpa, it's not PB. You can tell who it is by the diction and syntax.

  • D-Pizzle||

    *phrasing and syntax.

  • D-Pizzle||

    I can't believe people haven't figured out who you really are. I'll keep the secret. I hope some figure it out soon.

  • BadLib||

    "This has to be a finalist for Worst Analogy of the Year."

    There are only six weeks left in the year. It's extremely unlikely that another worse analogy will appear during those six weeks and this one certainly is the winner by far of those already on the 2018 list.

    Let's just declare the good Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland the 2018 winner right now so the judges can enjoy their holidays without distraction.

  • Rebel Scum||

    "Gorsuch did no such thing. All he did was accept a nomination."

    Hitler never gassed anyone to death. He just allowed his supporters to do so.

    Ok, this HAS to be parody. This is OBL level.

  • BigT||

    Yes, and yet many are engaging it.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Still entertaining.

  • DesigNate||

    He won't admit the latter because he's either a) a parody account or b) the real deal and a total fucking bigot.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Oh, and by the way - I follow several CDLs who blog, and they were universally wary of Garland because his history as a federal judge demonstrates him to be extremely pro-cop. You claim to be a libertarian, but you'd prefer to have a badge-licker on the court as long as he's wearing the right colored jersey.

  • Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland||

    "You claim to be a libertarian, but you'd prefer to have a badge-licker on the court as long as he's wearing the right colored jersey."

    A badge-licker appointed by a Democrat is better than a fascist appointed by a fascist, hillbilly.

  • Sevo||

    Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland|11.19.18 @ 12:37PM|#
    "A badge-licker appointed by a Democrat is better than a fascist appointed by a fascist, hillbilly."

    A lefty ass-licker like you is worse than either, you fucking ignoramus.

  • Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland||

    Nice comeback, Vladimir.

  • Sevo||

    Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland|11.19.18 @ 12:53PM|#
    "Nice comeback, Vladimir."

    Go whine somewhere else, fucking lefty ass-licker.

  • DesigNate||

    Did you have to change your handle Rev, or is this someone trying to be even more over the top then him?

  • Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland||

    Are you referring to the Reverend Al Sharpton? He played a major role in shaping my beliefs as an ideologically consistent libertarian. Glad to see he has a following here.

  • Zeb||

    I think it must be someone new. It seems more like obvious parody and less just being a shit-head.

  • D-Pizzle||

    It's parody, but it's not someone new. Read the posts, focusing on the structure and word choice, and you'll figure out who it really is. It's obvious.

  • Jonrichter||

    Wasn't Arthur Kirkland Al Pacino's character in And Justice For All?

  • Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland||

    Not sure about Pacino, but Robert De Niro is another Resistance hero whom libertarians scorn, because he's from Hollywood.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Wow, you really phoned that one in.

  • Aloysious||

    *slow clap*

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    OBL has some free time on his hands?

    This is A+ work, whoever it is. You can't really tell the difference, except for the fact that the real Kirkland likes to string together his elitist adjectives instead of parsing them out like this.

  • Ska||

    I'm really enjoying what appears to be OBL 2.0.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I'm guessing Red Tony at this point. He started out excellent, but he's really gotten out of character baiting Sevo. Entertaining, nonetheless.

  • John||

    OBL still does quality work quite often. The guy may be passed his prime, but he still shows why he was great.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    It's really quite amazing for him to stay in character so well. Although trolling leftist Twitter feeds seems to give him plenty of material to mimic.

  • D-Pizzle||

    I wasn't going to out him, but yes, this is obviously OBL. I think the lack of hashtags is what's thrown people off.

  • Jonrichter||

    Sotomayor is too new to the court to make any firm conclusions. I say Thomas is the most libertarian. He is the only justice who voted the correct way in Kelo, Raich, Citizens United, and Heller.

  • Juice||

    Ah yeah, lovin those libertarian middle school strip searches.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Sotomayor is the most libertarian justice on the bench.

    What does she think about 2A?

    He's still a thug who swindled Merrick Garland

    Gorsuch did not nominate himself. I am not sure you know what words mean.

    But on the nomination topic, no one swindled anyone. Barry's party did not control the necessary legislative body (Senate) at the time and the party that did was fully within their authority to not consider a nominee.

  • Tony||

    Something you and your fellow Republitards would take with stoic acceptance if the parties were reversed, no doubt.

  • TuIpa||

    Tony still going with the "you would do it so I can too" defense of shitty behavior despite being, supposedly, an adult.

  • Tony||

    I'm recognizing behavioral trends. Republicunts go apeshit insane for literally years on end over a president saying "57 states" once, yet all is forgiven if the ridiculous orange blob can barely speak with the vocabulary of a 5th grader as long as that all-important (R) is after his name.

  • DesigNate||

    Tony still acting like he knows anything about libertarians and calling everyone who thinks he's a horrible human being a republican.

  • Tony||

    Sorry for assuming that being a libertarian had something to do with beliefs other than "Oh yum yum Trump nutsack tastes like freedom gurgle gurgle."

  • DesigNate||

    Do you just not pay attention to the vast majority of articles and comments? Because there are way more people here critical of Trump than in support of him.

    And it's an exceptionally ridiculous claim coming from someone who couldn't help but fellate Obama every chance he got.

  • Tony||

    There are none so blind as those who refuse to unlatch their faces from the yeti bush.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Indeed, if the roles were reversed Democrats would be fully in their authority to not consider a Republican president's nominee. You're starting to catch on to what it means to make an objective judgement.

  • Tony||

    Mitch McConnell would put on a suicide vest before he'd let that happen. It was the final breaking of a long line of attempted decorum in the nomination process, to the court's detriment. They denied the president even a hearing. You'd never forget a move like that and neither would we.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    poor whiny baby. You ignore that it was the D side of the fence that took every last decorum breaking steps first until the last one when all decorum was already cast aside and there was no good faith left to give.

  • Rebel Scum||

    It was the final breaking of a long line of attempted decorum in the nomination process

    Harry Reid would like a word with you.

    But, anyway, no it wasn't. Remember, "elections have consequences" and, at the end of the day, Team Blue did not control the Senate. So cry me a river.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump is MAGA thanks to Gorsuch.

    Evidently Obama MAGA with Sotomayor and didnt even know it.

  • Mr. Dyslexic||

    Who's PAM Kirkland?

  • Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland||

    Pam is my wife, and unlike you rubes, she can do calculus.

  • Sevo||

    Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland|11.19.18 @ 12:37PM|#
    "Pam is my wife, and unlike you rubes, she can do calculus."

    If you have a wife, she's probably barely able to drool.

  • Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland||

    This is my wife, you inconsequential, invidious worm.

  • Sevo||

    "This is my wife, you inconsequential, invidious worm."

    Can't be. Doesn't look like the knuckle-walker who you'd attract.

  • BigT||

    He's f-ing his granddaughter!

  • Mr. Dyslexic||

    Who's PAM Kirkland?

  • Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland||

    Learn how to use the Internet, you hick.

  • Sevo||

    Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland|11.19.18 @ 12:38PM|#
    "Learn how to use the Internet, you hick."

    Learn how to think, fucking ignoramus.

  • Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland||

    The Kremlin called. They want their laptop back.

  • Sevo||

    Pastor Arthur M. Kirkland|11.19.18 @ 12:57PM|#
    "The Kremlin called. They want their laptop back."

    Check with that miserable hag; pretty sure she has it.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Shouldn't you be asking, "Who's MAP Kirkland?"

  • Dillinger||

    >>>Gorsuch and Sotomayor have shown that the story is more complicated when it comes to questions of criminal justice.

    not complicated. roadmap exists. G & S followed map.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • Tony||

    The founders clearly put in an exception to the Bill of Rights for drunk driving where it didn't for things like torture and murder because, well, have you not seen those weepy MADD presentations?

  • Rebel Scum||

    Because that's what this case is about. This isn't even partisan and you are incapable of discerning the actual context of the content.

  • Tony||

    I believe it fits into the general practice of treating drunk driving as a uniquely constitution-limited crime. I'm expressing a libertarian perspective here. Give me a break, I'm on vacation.

  • TuIpa||

    The founders did put "shall not be infringed" in there, so this newfound concern of his is pretty transparently more of his silly bullshit.

  • Tony||

    What's with you idiots making the express argument that you must ignore most of the sentence in order to discern the meaning of the sentence?

  • TuIpa||

    See? Sometimes its what the founders say, and when Tony wants it to be, it's then about "discerning the meaning of a sentence" because the explicitly clear meaning goes against his politics.

  • Tony||

    What's the explicitly clear meaning of "well regulated militia"?

    Even you have to know you're assuming your conclusion and then focusing on the absolutist "shall not be infringed" bit. What shall not be infringed is the entire question.

  • DesigNate||

    You still don't know what an operative clause is?

  • Tony||

    Is that the part of the sentence that makes the other part of the sentence irrelevant to the sentence's meaning?

  • TuIpa||

    There are two clauses that comprise the Second Amendment, an operative clause, and a prefatory clause. Operative clause: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." ... Prefatory clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

    This entire time you've been wrong because you are a shitty English student.

    Glad I could help.

  • TuIpa||

    No, I know I'm reading it. It says "shall not be infringed."

    You're the one trying to ignore what the founders said about it, and make "shall not be infringed" into "shall be infringed" because your politics demand you ignore reality.

    "What shall not be infringed is the entire question."

    Only if you're an idiot like you are. The rest of the world knows how commas and independent clauses work.

  • TuIpa||

    I think the funniest part about this is that you've completely given up on your original stupid pretense of caring what the founders wrote, because you literally cannot have that and not know you're completely wrong on the 2nd amendment.

    I posted to make you reveal your true colors and you jumped.

  • Rebel Scum||

    What's the explicitly clear meaning of "well regulated militia"?

    A functioning irregular fighting force composed of the citizenry. This is in the context of "regular" and "irregular" soldiers. You would know this if you had even the slightest knowledge of American history and/or 18th century warfare. You would also to well to refer the Federalist Papers, in which every single reference on this topic supports private, current technology military-grade arms ownership.

    That aside, the first clause states A purpose but not the ONLY purpose. The operative part is the second part. as I explain below.

  • TuIpa||

    "You would also to well to refer the Federalist Papers, in which every single reference on this topic supports private, current technology military-grade arms ownership."

    I was actually saving this to club him over the head with it, but he gave up on the pretense of caring what the founders thought almost immediately.

  • Tony||

    So either the amendment tragically poorly serves modern America or you and the Heller shitshow have mangled it into something it was never intended to be. What does Bubba with his arsenal have to do with a well-regulated militia (something that is obsolete in the modern age)? And if a militia has nothing to do with the right, why is it the only context mentioned?

  • TuIpa||

    So you're saying you still don't understand English sentence constriction.

  • TuIpa||

    By the way Tony, this very serious language deficiency you are displaying is something that is usually mastered somewhere around the 8th ot 9th grade.

    You literally read at Middle School level.

  • Tony||

    By the way Tulpa, stop whoring your policy preferences out to long-dead men who would never approve of the level of gun violence in modern society. Defend that level of violence on its policy merits. Even if the 2nd amendment says what you think it does, it's not holy fucking writ. Defend tens of thousands of deaths per year that no other civilized country experiences. Say why it's preferable to the alternative. Defend the policy on its merits. Stop hiding behind dead people and--you'd see this as laughable if you weren't doing it--arguments based on grammar vocab words.

  • TuIpa||

    "By the way Tulpa, stop whoring your policy preferences out to long-dead men"

    You started the founders stuff dumbass, stop whining that your childish gambit was turned back on you so effectively.

  • Rebel Scum||

    No one is defending violence. The government is granted authority to do some things. It is expressly prohibited from doing other things. That is the paradigm in which we must operate.

    Say why it's preferable to the alternative.

    I don't have to because restricting firearms access because the technology has advanced is unconstitutional and outside the legitimate authority of the gov't. It is not a "policy preference". Right now the gov't is literally not allowed to do what you want on guns. And the grammar matters. That's one way we interpret what passages in the document mean. That is one way to have consistency in meaning. The alternative to that is your "living" constitution which would not be a constitution defining a government at all because the government would be limitless. Stop being a mendacious fuckwit and think for once.

  • Tony||

    I understand that the authors of these texts were parsimonious enough so as not to write entire halves of sentences they didn't mean.

  • TuIpa||

    That seems to be in total opposition to actually demonstrated reality, as evidenced by their public and personal writing, and the rest of the document itself.

    So, we have established that you are not actually awarw of the style or construction of the document you are referencing, and that your reading comprehension is insufficient for you to fully understand said document.

  • TuIpa||

    You'll notice Tony continues to rely on his interpretations rather than actually written reality, even going so far as to suggest the writers of the Constitution were, in his opinion which he will insist matters, models of textual brevity.

    Not the ACTUAL WORDS ON THE PAGE, mind you, but his feelings. As a liberal, it always comes down to his feelings, printed reality be damned.

  • Tony||

    You started this bullshit by quoting like a third of the sentence. I'm looking at all the actual words on the page, and not irrelevantly the entire history of case law until Heller, and reading what it rather clearly means. You're just a slut for the gun lobby.

    "You don't know grammar vocab words!" What a shitty, shitty argument.

  • TuIpa||

    "You started this bullshit by quoting like a third of the sentence"

    No Tony, I realize that getting kicked so hard and exposed as a substandard reader is probably quite jarring for you, but YOU started this appealing to the founders writings and I used that to drag your moron ass.

    The thread and your idiot comments don't vanish because you have run out of arguments and now are throwing a tantrum.

  • TuIpa||

    "You don't know grammar vocab words!" What a shitty, shitty argument."

    You brought grammr into this. Thank you for admitting you made a shitty argument.

  • Rebel Scum||

    halves of sentences they didn't mean.

    Both halves mean something. "The people" are the "militia", which necessitates they be sufficiently armed. That's the entire point. FFS.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "So either the amendment tragically poorly serves modern America or you and the Heller shitshow have mangled it into something it was never intended to be."

    The first half of that is a value judgement, not an objective fact. The second half is objectively untrue, so if you actually believe one of these must be true, then work to lobby congress to put forth an amendment repealing 2A. Until congress does that, go away.

  • TuIpa||

    Tony has resorted to gaslighting and lying about his own behavior. He usually does that just before he runs away because he lost the argument.

  • Tony||

    It's just that I have a lot of phone calls to make and it's raining.

  • TuIpa||

    And that you brought the founders and grammatical arguments into this, then lied about it because you lost the argument.

  • DesigNate||

    In his defense, I brought the grammar in because he's a fucking moron that doesn't understand basic English and actively ignores the main subject of the sentence in order to push his shitty fucking political agenda.

  • Tony||

    I'd say our rates of gun deaths are objectively bad, but to each his own. To be clear, the debate we're having is "People should be able to privately own firearms [which ones are unclear] for any purpose" vs. "Obsolete militia culture requires the obsolete concept of bearing obsolete arms."

    Since we can't agree on what a sentence means, let's debate the policy differences on their merits, how about? You won the Supreme Court to a degree already, and they decide what the constitution means, so that's that. Now all the blood on your hands--defend that, all by itself.

  • TuIpa||

    "Since we can't agree on what a sentence means, let's debate the policy differences on their merits, how about? "

    As soon as you admit you brought the founders into this, and made the first grammar related argument, and lied about doing both.

    And then, you need to improve your reading comprehension skills beyond the 8th/9th grade level where they are now.

    Because until you do that, your suggestion is just you trying to ignore your failure and shithead behavior.

  • Tony||

    I was going to be a scholar of modernist British and Irish literature until I decided I liked making money. Your problem is that you're regurgitating horseshit you read somewhere and thinking that amounts to an education. It's not like I haven't heard said horseshit before. You're still saying, when all is said and done, that the latter half of the sentence renders the first half completely meaningless. That's the argument and it's all over the cousinfucking internet. You think I don't know that? You think I'm being fooled into thinking you're a simple grammar scold?

  • TuIpa||

    What I'm saying is that in this thread you have lied repeatedly, specifically about initiating a founder based argument and a grammar based argument, and when challenged, continue to lie.

    "I was going to be a scholar of modernist British and Irish literature until I decided I liked making money. "

    BONA FIDES!!!

    It clearly bothers you that you have exposed your utter ignorance of grammar after initiating a grammar based argument, that you have already admitted was shitty. No one believes your fake bona fides, Tony. Your actual posts make it clear they don't need to, you read at a Middle School level and argue based on that, so telling us you are too poor of a reader to make money being a scholar is something we know already.

  • Rebel Scum||

    I'd say our rates of gun deaths are objectively bad

    Irrelevant to what the gov'ts authority is. You lost the definition argument so you move the goal post. This is tedious and tiresome.

  • TuIpa||

    "To be clear, the debate we're having is"

    Ok Lil Tony, this clarifies a lot. You are a poor reader because you thought your instructors were debating you instead of ignoring your chidish diversions and correcting you, like I have been.

  • Zeb||

    What's the explicitly clear meaning of "well regulated militia"?

    Does it matter? The second amendment declares that it is (whatever it may be) necessary to maintain a free state. And also that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's not a conditional. The right to keep and bear arms is still there, whatever the definition of "well regulated" is.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Back when it was written, it meant:

    Well regulated = properly and generally equally armed.
    Militia = able bodied men of fighting age.

    You confuse "well regulated" with "organized." See 10 U.S.C Section 311 and suck it.

  • Rebel Scum||

    ignore most of the sentence

    We don;t ignore most of the sentence. We just acknowledge the operative part that says "the right of the people" in contrast to the aforementioned militia, with the militia being composed of "the body of the people trained to arms", as stated more explicitly in article 1, section 13 of the Constitution of the State in which I reside.

  • Lawn Darts||

    Sometimes it's easier to look at the constitutions of the various states, most of which are modeled after the federal constitution, but often use slightly different language to explain something. Nevada's constitution says "Right to keep and bear arms: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes." (Period. End of subject).

    Sweet.

  • posmoo||

    testimonial evidence and constitutional rights are out of whack in the modern age. you have a right not to testify against yourself, but somehow having your blood drawn isn't testimony, and some day reading your mind won't be either presumably, or at least it shouldn't be if their was logical consistency. I don't imagine the authors of the bill of rights would have neglected such protections had they been able to foresee the technological progress.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The state cannot get a DUI conviction constitutionally without you telling on yourself verbally or with a blood, urine, or breath sample.

    The Founders never had a crime for being drunk on a horse and running into someone.

    They had drunk in public and civil liability for running your horse into someone and injuring them.

    DUI should not be a crime because its impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt without violating someone's constitutional rights. Charge a person with driving crimes or injury crimes which are provable.

  • Rebel Scum||

    had they been able to foresee the technological progress.

    Technological advance is immaterial in the context of rights. You either have rights or you do not.

  • Ben of Houston||

    A blood test is more akin to a police observation. It's an objective, verifiable fact. In ye olden days, the police would testify that you appeared sloshed when they picked you up. Now, they can verify this. It's actually an improvement, since there's some independent verification, it's harder to railroad people by false testimony or misinterpretation.

    The ban on testifying on yourself is there to prevent forced testimony and stacking perjury charges onto everything.

  • n00bdragon||

    My wife is a MLS. This case is pretty obviously BS. Lab techs are not witnesses and the information they provide is not something you can really cross-examine. The tests they perform are standardized and the results are not something that they apply any interpretation to. I guarantee you any questions asked to them would look like this:
    Attorney: "How do you know she was drunk at the time of arrest?"
    Tech: "The measured BAC at the time of testing was X."
    Attorney: "Yes, but how do you know the BAC at the time of arrest?"
    Tech: "There is a standard formula you can use with the patient's height and weight and time since the blood test to estimate previous BAC levels but all we provide is the BAC at time of measurement. After that its up to the police to do the extrapolation."
    Any lab person will tell you that. The defense appears to be arguing that they need a chance to confront the mathmatician who solved an equation. The equation isn't a secret. They can all solve it themselves in court right there.

    I suppose you could try to argue that the blood test itself didn't yield the correct results but that would require some evidence of malfeasance on the part the tech.

  • Sevo||

    "Lab techs are not witnesses and the information they provide is not something you can really cross-examine. The tests they perform are standardized and the results are not something that they apply any interpretation to."
    Bull
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    shit.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "I suppose you could try to argue that the blood test itself didn't yield the correct results but that would require some evidence of malfeasance on the part the tech."

    You can also argue that the test was improperly performed or that the blood tested did not come from the defendant. Both of those can be error, they do not require deliberate malfeasance. They are also process and chain of custody questions that can only be testified to be the tech(s) who drew the blood and performed the test.

  • DesigNate||

    If they aren't witnesses, then they probably shouldn't be put on the stand to conjecture what the defendants BAC was hours before the blood was drawn and tested.

  • RoyMo||

    Armstrong v. Daily (2015) Seventh Circuit is why they need to testify

  • D-Pizzle||

    First, you say, "[l]ab techs are not witnesses and the information they provide is not something you can really cross-examine." Then you proceed to give a solid example of a competent cross-examination. Can you see why we all disagree with you?

  • Uncle Jay||

    Oh, please!
    Its not the jobs of SCOTUS justices to make tough legal decisions.
    Its their job to make a ton of money from the taxpayers, engage in witty conversations in Georgetown soirees, surf the web in their chambers, have squirt gun fights in the hallways of the Supreme Court while naked, make hundreds of thousands of dollars at speaking engagements, debate which porn stars are better at what they do, and to figure out clever ways to further oppress the masses.
    You'll find all this in the job description of every SCOTUS justice.
    You just have to look it up.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Gorsuch argues "Even the most well-meaning analyst may lack essential training, contaminate a sample, or err during the testing process."

    Therefore, denying cross examination of the actual tech who performed the test denies the opportunity to probe these factors. Providing a separate expert to discuss the technology more generally is nonresponsive.

    My question earlier was "what other evidence do they have"? A BAC is typically sufficient, but not necessary to prove DUI. If the driver "acted drunk" and "smelled like alcohol" while driving recklessly, that can be sufficient to convict, even in the absence of a blood test. So, it would be helpful for me to know if there were other evidence of guilt.

  • vek||

    I get the right to cross examine thing... Is that ALL that was going on here though?

    The way it's worded, it sounds like she may have blew under the legal limit, but they extrapolated that she MUST have been over when she was pulled over. If that's the case, that almost sounds like a bigger deal than the other thing, which one could almost wave off as them just bringing in expert testimony etc.

    Imagine other variations on the theme: Nobody saw him at the scene of the murder, but somebody saw him X blocks away X minutes later, which means HE MUST have been there at the time! If that type of stuff is up for debate in this case, then it's even more whack they didn't accept it.

  • letters2mary||

    Agreed. Let's have trial by formula. Hmmm....what could be wrong with that?

  • Pumping Solutions||

    Sure that you'll get your ass reamed, your license suspended, and your credit ruined if you don't pay.

  • JOIN WAL||

    No, we're talking about Garland. You've now admitted that you're not a libertarian. You'd rather have a Democrat-nominated cop lover on the bench than someone who looks like they're disposed toward actual liberty. You're a Democrat. And discussing stuff with you is as fruitful as discussing stuff with loveconstitution. No point in it because your objectivity is wrecked by your adherence to your team. Goodbye.www.Mesalary.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online