Today in Supreme Court History: January 6, 1964

1/6/1964: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan argued.

Comments

[Michael P]

I think I read a warning label somewhere: "If your double posting lasts more than two days, call your doctor or seek medical help immediately."

[Dan Schiavetta]

There should be a way to fit the 1/6/21 storming of the Capitol into this series. It wouldn’t be as irrelevant to the Supreme Court as some of the other posts. It was certainly Constitutionally significant.

[Bob from Ohio]

"It was certainly Constitutionally significant."

No it wasn't. They counted the votes a few hours later and Biden still won.

Outside the Beltway and political Twitter no one cares.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If they stormed your office, calling for your head, and you had to evacuate, I think you'd care.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You have it backward, Bob from Ohio. The disaffected, insular citizens whose concerns are of little importance are the conservative clingers. The liberal-libertarian mainstream, perhaps by definition, is what counts.

(This side doesn't let one get to three, but here's a second.)

[Cal Cetín]

"There should be a way to fit the 1/6/21 storming of the Capitol into this series."

So the psychiatrist shows the patient a series of Rorschach ink blots.

Looking at the ink blots one by one, the patient says, "man and woman having sex...man with erection...woman with large breasts..."

The psychiatrist says, "you certainly seem obsessed with sex."

The patient indignantly answers, "*I'm* obsessed? *You're* the one with all the dirty pictures!"

[Cal Cetín]

It's possible to hold two thoughts in one's head simultaneously.

1) Someone made a scary attack on the national legislative body

2) In response to the threat, the national legislative body should pass an Enabling Act giving the government more powers.

[Cal Cetín]

2) should *not*

[Dan Schiavetta]

Doesn't matter, neither one of your propositions is true.

It wasn't just "someone".

And no one has propose #2.

[Cal Cetín]

"It wasn't just "someone"."

No, it was a guy with Viking horns, I think his name was Van Der Lubbe.

[Dan Schiavetta]

And about 5,000 others.

There was a well-written article in the New Yorker not too long ago, about someone who had a debilitating case of amnesia. He couldn't remember anything that happened more than 20 minutes ago. If you can remember long enough to get to the end of this comment, you should look it up. Perhaps you can be helped.

[Cal Cetín]

These cases are so serious that some defendants are getting the punishment-first-verdict-afterward-treatment. If *you* could remember beyond 20 minutes, you'd recall Brennan and Marshal's dissent from the decision allowing pretrial detention without bail - I side with Brennan and Marshal in that case but believe that their dissent should have been grounded in the 9th Amendment. That was in 1987 - maybe Trump got to Brennan and Marshal and got them to dissent?

[Cal Cetín]

"The [federal] Bail Reform Act of 1984 also hinders a successful defense by making it easier to hold suspects in jail prior to trial. This practice prevents accused persons from freely talking with their attorneys, locating friendly witnesses, and otherwise assembling the necessary information to prove their case."

This was from Reason in 1989.

https://reason.com/1989/03/01/trends-191/