Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

Feather bans, tent curtilage, and youngsters and their sweets.

Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.

Friends, it's illegal to operate a food truck in 96 percent of Jacksonville, N.C. And at any given time it might also be illegal in the other 4 percent, owing to a ban on food trucks operating within 250 feet of each other. That's no way to treat hardworking, honest folks who just want to earn a living, so this month IJ filed suit under the state constitution, which protects North Carolinians' inalienable right to "the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor." Click here to learn more.

• Pennsylvania troopers investigating calls about gunshots walk toward a man's campsite and see two cylindrical devices that they suspect—correctly—to be improvised explosive devices. Man: The tent was an abode and the area around it (including where they found the IEDs) was curtilage for which they needed a warrant. District court: It's an open question in this circuit, but the facts don't support a Fourth Amendment violation. Third Circuit (nonprecedential and with three sentences of analysis): Affirmed.
• "[Y]oung people have an age-old proclivity toward sweets," pronounces the Fourth Circuit, in affirming the FDA's denial of a vape company's request to market fruit- and dessert-flavored e-cigarettes.
• Allegation: In retaliation for suing officials after he was stabbed (at a different facility), inmate at Lee County, Va. federal prison is put in "special housing" for three months. The cell is freezing, covered in mold. For bedding, he's given only a one-inch thick piece of cotton half the length of his body that is covered in hair. Unconstitutional conditions of confinement? Fourth Circuit: Constitution?
• Southlake, Tex. police officer handcuffs, screams at distressed, autistic 8-year-old in principal's office. Fifth Circuit (2019): Go ahead and sue the (now-former) officer. Fifth Circuit (2022, unpublished): But the claims against the city for disability discrimination were properly dismissed. "[T]here is no indication that [the officer] would not have delivered the same message, in the very same manner, to a non-disabled student who … acted as [the child] did." [Ed.: The officer's next gig? Police chief.]
• Louisiana law forbids anyone from providing "respite care" to the elderly without first persuading state regulators that these services are needed. And the Fifth Circuit says that law may be motivated by economic protectionism, but it is not motivated only by economic protectionism and is therefore constitutional.
• If this Eighth Circuit opinion about qualified immunity and Medicaid benefits were to be filed in the D.C. Circuit, your correspondents are morally certain it would be bounced for UWTMASWTMWTF (Using Way Too Many Acronyms. Seriously. Way Too Many. WTF). But at least it's not in Garamond font—a separate and equally unforgivable sin in our nation's seat of government.
• Bad news: Prisoner is put in solitary in an Arizona state prison because, among other reasons, he's a member of a gang. Good news: There's an annual opportunity to appeal and get out of solitary! All you have to do is renounce your gang membership, prove it, and go through a whole lotta bureaucratic steps. Bad news: Prisoner is found with evidence that he's still kind of maybe into the gang. Good news: There's a way to appeal that determination! Bad news: Appeal is denied and the Ninth Circuit says that was just fine. Dissent: The prison appeals process appears to be a mirage.
• Disgruntled employees of Clark County, Wash. electrician turn cell-site location information over to state regulators, leading to fines against the electrician for improper supervision of journeymen electricians. The electrician sues, alleging that the regulators violated the Fourth Amendment when they obtained the data without a warrant. Ninth Circuit: You're mixing up your Fourth Amendment doctrines. The Supreme Court has held that the "third-party doctrine" does not apply as an exception to the warrant requirement for cell-site location data, but this case is governed by the "private search" exception to the Fourth Amendment, which has no such limitation.
• Allegation: Phoenix, Ariz. high school student—an enrolled member of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate tribe—wants to decorate her graduation cap with an eagle feather, a culturally significant religious symbol. Uh oh! The rules say no decorations on graduation caps, and she is prohibited from attending. Double uh oh! The school let other students wear secular messages on their caps. A First Amendment violation? Ninth Circuit: Could be. Case undismissed. Partial dissent: It could also be that those other students just broke the rules and didn't get caught; the plaintiff should add more allegations of selective enforcement.
• Tenth Circuit, in a PSA to cops: There is no misguided-flirtatiousness exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.
• Allegation: Disregarding dept. policy, Oklahoma City officer barges into the home of armed, suicidal woman and tases her. In another incident, he disregards felony traffic stop procedures and shoots and kills a motorist. He fails to follow up on a report of child abuse and fails to properly book evidence. Tenth Circuit (unpublished): None of which put the chief on notice he'd barge past fellow officers and shoot and kill an unarmed, suicidal man. The claims against the city can't go forward. (The officer was convicted of murder.)
• Does a Florida life insurance policy that denies death benefits in the event of suicide have to pay out if the insured commits "suicide by cop"? Eleventh Circuit: No, for the same reason it wouldn't pay out if he committed "suicide by train." The cops/train may have killed the insured, but he set it in motion.
• It goes against all reason and experience, but the Eleventh Circuit holds that Crum may benefit from Couch's demise.
• And in en banc news, the D.C. Circuit will not reconsider its decision that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Federal Election Commission's decision not to pursue charges against a group alleged to have failed to register as a political committee. The original panel held that so long as any part of that non-enforcement decision was based on prosecutorial discretion, it was unreviewable. Two judges dissent from denial, arguing that the rule allows the commissioners to game the system, invoking prosecutorial discretion when they think their legal reasoning is a stretch, while omitting it when they feel confident of a victory in court.
• And in more en banc news, the Sixth Circuit (over two dissentals) will not reconsider its decision that victims of an Ohio State University athletic doctor who sexually abused hundreds of students between 1978 and 1998 can overcome the two-year statute of limitations if the university covered up its own deliberate indifference.
• And in still more en banc news, the Ninth Circuit will not reconsider its decision that Twitter lacked standing to challenge a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) issued by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, asking the company to produce documents relating to its content moderation decisions. The original panel held that even though the CID may chill Twitter's speech and the case was constitutionally ripe, the case was not "prudentially" ripe because Twitter had the option of ignoring the CID.
• And in new cert petition news, the Eighth Circuit ruled in 2020 that a St. Paul cop working on a joint state-federal task force who framed a pair of teenagers for a nonexistent crime could not be sued in her capacity as a federal officer. (The teens spent about two years in prison.) Then this year, the same court ruled that she cannot be sued in her capacity as a state officer either. Absolute immunity? For knowingly putting innocent people in prison? SCOTUS, please no. Click here to learn more. Or click here to read exoneree Amanda Knox's amicus brief in support of cert.
• And in more new cert petition news, the D.C. Circuit recently ruled that it is rational for District of Columbia officials to require childcare workers to get a college degree. It is hypothesized that this will lead to some benefits, and perhaps it will—for people who give out the degrees. For everyone else, including D.C. parents (who already face the highest childcare costs in the country) and childcare providers (who may not speak English as a first language and who definitely don't need advanced math classes to do their job), SCOTUS, please no. Click here to learn more.
• And in additional new cert petition news, Ohio state courts have turned aside a Good Samaritan's attempts to use his private property in Akron—an old clay-tile making factory and its backlot—to shelter the homeless from life-threatening cold when no indoor housing is available. Click here for a lovingly crafted, in-depth podcast episode about the case—and to hear the shelter's neighbors plead unsuccessfully with the city not to close it down. Or click here for more on the case itself.
• And in reply brief news, would you believe the feds are arguing—and the First Circuit agreed—that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines does not apply to civil penalties? Penalties such as the $2.17 mil the federal gov't is trying to charge an octogenarian for failing to fill out a one-page form. (She notified authorities of the oversight herself.) SCOTUS, please no. Click here to learn more.
• And in amicus brief news, IJ is asking the full Fifth Circuit to affirm its denial of qualified immunity to Laredo, Tex. officials who retaliated against a critical journalist by having her arrested and prosecuted under an obscure public-corruption statute that no journalist has ever been subjected to. Her purported crime? She asked a police source to corroborate some facts, and they did.

If you are reading this, you already know: Qualified immunity is an absolute disaster for sound governance, good order, and the very soul of the nation. If you agree, please join Americans Against Qualified Immunity—a coalition of individuals founded on the belief that if we must follow the law, then government employees must follow the Constitution. Joining Americans Against Qualified Immunity means joining thousands of other voices calling for an end to this unconstitutional, unjust, and un-American doctrine. Visit AAQI.org to learn more.

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

Jacksonville NC! Home of Camp Lejeune (it was always "Le-June" when I was there (after the bad water, before 9-11) at some point they started calling it "Le Jurne" (and added like 20 additional gates to enter the base)
Probably more Tattoo Parlors/Barber Shops/Pawn Shops per square mile than anywhere in Amurica, except for the Army's weak entry, Fayette-Nam, to the West.
At some point they closed down the "Adult Relaxation" and Titty Bars (dammit) but they do have a Hooters

Frank

[SomeGuy 2]

"Madziarek's counterarguments are unavailing. He contends that, because the Terry property is "heavily wooded and covered in brush," it cannot be an open field. (Doc. 37 at 1). The Supreme Court, however, has explained that "[a]n open field need be neither 'open' nor a 'field,'" and "a thickly wooded area nonetheless may be an open field."

(from the IED case). The glorious majesty of the law strikes again!! Might want to come up with a new name for this legal doctrine then. Geez.

[Longtobefree]

Reuse the acronym FYTW.

[Michael P]

The "open fields" doctrine was invented by courts, so I don't see why courts should be bound by plain-language rules of construction regarding its name. One might think of "open fields" as a heading for a set of sometimes-complex rules.

[Archibald Tuttle]

District court: It's an open question in this circuit, but the facts don't support a Fourth Amendment violation.

Curse the whole notion of "reasonable expectation of privacy." We need laws to explicitly codify privacy rights.

[Dr. Ed 2]

""[T]here is no indication that [the officer] would not have delivered the same message, in the very same manner, to a non-disabled student who … acted as [the child] did."

What the hell ever happened to ADA?!?

[Noscitur a sociis]

How do you think the ADA should have factored into this case?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The lower courts have consistently held that state and local police departments are “public entities” for purposes of Title II, and they have identified some law enforcement activities that are considered “services, programs, or activities” for purposes of the ADA. Case law shows that Title II applies to post-arrest activities such as transporting a suspect to the police station for booking or questioning a suspect following an arrest[emphasis added]

If the child was in handcuffs, that is "questioning a subject following an arrest." -- and hence ADA applied.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10606

[Noscitur a sociis]

And?

[Gandydancer]

The individual kicked the teacher in the shins and was arrested. The school cop denies knowing about the "autism" and observes that the child was in regular classes. Not seeing any indication that any questioning went on that ought to drag an irrelevant ADA into the case by its ears. Was some testimony elicited that would be ok if elicited from a non-"autistic" 8 y/o, but is now supposed to be an ADA-violating atrocity in this instance?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullbleep. From the court's description of the facts:
The agreement also provided that, before the district would request assistance in regard to any special-needs child, the district would provide detailed instructions and access to the child’s Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP), their Admissions, Review & Dismissal (ARD) paperwork, and Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) to the designated SRO.

They were supposed to tell the officer, provide him access to the paperwork, and he is supposed to be able to understand it.

S.W. was diagnosed with autism, oppositional defiant disorder, and separation anxiety disorder.

I have problems with ODD and SAD as diagnosi, but they *are* officially-recognized and hence come under both FAPE & IDEA as well as ADA. And as this was a SRO, *HE* became bound by FAPE but it gets worse....

On October 8, 2013, Carroll Elementary School Principal Stacy Wagnon made a report to Child Protective Services (CPS) that S.W. had made a statement that he “wanted to suicide himself.” Wagnon also contacted SPD. This led to various meetings and discussions between officials from the school, SPD, CPS and S.W.’s parents.[emphasis added]

So the police (and hopefully the particular officer, as he was the SRO) were involved in "various meetings and discussions" and he still didn't know the child was SPED? Even if he didn't know what the fancy words meant (and he could have asked) he at least knew that the child was SPED.

But it gets even better...

On January 7, 2014, S.W. was serving in-school suspension in Wagnon’s office when he had an incident that resulted in Jennifer Bailey, school counselor, requesting Slusser’s assistance. During this incident, S.W. screamed obscenities at Wagnon and Assistant Principal Angie George, overturned chairs, punched and kicked Wagnon, threw a jar of beans, said he was going to kill someone, and eventually dropped his pants and exposed himself. Wagnon and Slusser gave S.W. space and were able to calm him down. His parents arrived shortly thereafter to take him home. Slusser also reported this incident to Baker.[emphasis added]

They told the officer of the incident and that giving the child space calmed him down. Giving a child space is a common de-escalation technique -- and this officer is supposed to be trained in that. But it gets better yet:

On January 23, 2014, S.W. was serving in-school suspension in Wagnon’s office and became visibly upset, using obscenities, crumpling papers and throwing items on the floor. S.W. referenced a weapon in his backpack and produced what he referred to as “home-built nunchucks.” The “nunchucks” consisted of a jump rope provided by the school as part of a “Jump Rope for Heart” program. S.W. twirled the jump rope and attempted to hit Wagnon. He also threw a cup of coffee and hit the wall. Wagnon called for Slusser and he observed while she tried to calm S.W. who then ran into the hallway with his jump rope. Shortly after S.W. entered the hallway, SRO Sgt. Randy Baker, who had been called by Slusser, arrived. Slusser told Baker, “stand and watch right here, say nothing.” Seconds later, as S.W. was twirling his jump rope, Baker handcuffed S.W. and took him to Wagnon’s office. Baker sat face-to-face with S.W., screamed at him, called him names, including “punk” and “brat,” mocked S.W., and laughed at him. While screaming, Baker indicated that he was reacting the way he was because of how S.W. had acted during a previous incident.[emphasis added]

It isn't quite clear who this Slusser is, but he told the SRO to just observe, and the SRO is supposed to be on the same team as the rest of the school is.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The two things I don't understand is why the school district wasn't named in the lawsuit as well -- leaving it and the city to fight out who was responsible.

The other is how the city is not responsible for the conduct of their officer. How did this officer -- who was a Sargent -- not know that he was violating the child's Constitutional rights?

[Gandydancer]

Remind me, what "Constitutional right" was violated?

[Dr. Ed 2]

As the SPED parents who sue (which is frequently) are filing under Section 1983, it has to be some Constitutional right.

I should, but don't, know exactly what Constitutional right it is, only that courts say it is one.

[David Nieporent]

The two things I don’t understand is why the school district wasn’t named in the lawsuit as well

Because the school district didn't do anything?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The school district didn't properly supervise their SRO, and/or didn't negotiate a contract where the police would do so.

With disability issues, failure to do things becomes doing things.

They served to deny the little darling his legal right to an education.

(Dr. Ed doesn't favor ODD as a diagnosis. If we considered it a disqualifying condition for a driver's license, we'd have a LOT less of it...)

[David Nieporent]

The SRO is a police officer. He works for the police department. He does not work for the school and the school has no authority to "supervise" him.

[Gandydancer]

That's quite the lengthy post, but I'm not seeing anything answering my question about your complaint about allegedly ADA-violating questioning.

Nor do I see any clear indication that Baker was actually told about the child's "disabled" status, as opposed to mere supposition that he had. He says he wasn't aware of it.

And that Slusser can tell Baker how to perform his safety function is non-obvious.

This kid obviously belonged in a different institution than a school.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That’s quite the lengthy post, but I’m not seeing anything answering my quest.ion about your complaint about allegedly ADA-violating questioning.

It's the post arrest conduct of the SRO.

Nor do I see any clear indication that Baker was actually told about the child’s “disabled” status, as opposed to mere supposition that he had. He says he wasn’t aware of it.

Did you see: "...before the district would request assistance in regard to any special-needs child, the district would provide detailed instructions and access to the child’s Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP), their Admissions, Review & Dismissal (ARD) paperwork, and Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) to the designated SRO..."

That is a detailed discussion of both the child's disabilities and the protocols which the district WILL employ to address them. An IEP is a legally-enforceable contract between the district and the parents.

Did you also notice the "various meetings and discussions between officials from the school, SPD, CPS and S.W.’s parents"? What do you think they were meeting about and discussing? The cheapest price for gasoline in town?!?

And that Slusser can tell Baker how to perform his safety function is non-obvious.

The SRO is supposed to be part of a school management team, not a loose cannon.

This kid obviously belonged in a different institution than a school.

Agreed -- but that costs $$$ and hence districts are reluctant to outplace children. And I trust you saw what I wrote above about ODD.

[David Nieporent]

That is a detailed discussion of both the child’s disabilities and the protocols which the district WILL employ to address them. An IEP is a legally-enforceable contract between the district and the parents.

Ed, here's the problem: you think that being a maintenance guy at a college makes you an expert on law. And you only know about one or two laws, so you talk about them regardless of what they have to do with a given situation. (Remember when you claimed that having windows in a classroom violated FERPA?)

There was no IEP here. The student may have had some behavior issues which our modern society has reclassified as disabilities, but he was not a special ed student. You know how I know? Because I read the opinions.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"you think that being a maintenance guy at a college makes you an expert on law."

I am also a certified classroom teacher who has served on the team that writes IEPs.

Are you? Have you?

(Remember when you claimed that having windows in a classroom violated FERPA?)

There was a bit more to that -- and yes, if random members of the public can view student work, that would violate FERPA.

"There was no IEP here."

While, in fairness, the court did not explicitly state that the child had an IEP, I find it hard to believe that the district could -- or would -- have done the interventions they did without one.

I've never taught in Texas -- never even been there -- but I find it hard to believe that the Texas K-12 authorities would permit the school not to have IEPs.

"The student may have had some behavior issues which our modern society has reclassified as disabilities, but he was not a special ed student."

Bullbleep.

Do you even know what a SPED student (legally) even *is*?

He clearly is one -- that's why the court notes the diagnosi...

"You know how I know? Because I read the opinions."

Do tell.

Please indicate where in the opinions it states that he is *not* SPED. (NB: Being in a regular classroom doesn't count -- that's called "mainstreaming" and mandated by Federal law. And a bad idea, but I digress....)

[David Nieporent]

This is particularly true given that, during these times, S.W. was not designated as a “special education” student for purposes of the IDEA. Thus, as the Wilsons knew, the various plans and committees accompanying such a designation were not in place for him. And school personnel reportedly did not know whether S.W.’s escalating misconduct was related to a disability.

Notably, all of these points were emphasized in Wagnon’s December 1, 2013 email response to the Wilsons, which explained that, “[c]urrently, [S.W.] is not a student entitled to [the] procedural [and] substantive protections under [the] IDEA” that “are afforded to students receiving special education services under the [IDEA],” and noted the school district’s prior offer to “conduct a psychological evaluation of [S.W.] and consider special education eligibility,” as well as the Wilsons’ “refus[al] to provide consent.” The email continues to discuss the school district’s concerns regarding S.W.’s escalating behaviors, adding that the Wilsons’ failure to cooperate with the district’s efforts “to collaborate and develop a more effective behavior plan or other services necessary under [the] IDEA cannot be ignored and, as explained in both the written notice of proposal to evaluate and the procedural safeguards provided to [the Wilsons], impacts the procedural protections related to [S.W.’s] behavior regardless of his disability status.” Wagnon adds: “[S]ave and except for your refusal to provide consent for evaluation, [S.W.] would in fact be entitled to an expedited evaluation and ARD committee meeting if indicated at this point, as it would be important to determine whether the escalating behaviors, which now include the incident on Friday[,] which resulted in a disciplinary consequence, may be related to a disability. However, you waived that protection when you refused to provide consent.”

[David Nieporent]

There was a bit more to that — and yes, if random members of the public can view student work, that would violate FERPA.

Also, no.

[David Nieporent]

If the child was in handcuffs, that is “questioning a subject following an arrest.” — and hence ADA applied.

The student wasn't questioned. What are you talking about?

[David Nieporent]

What the hell ever happened to ADA?!?

It's not clear what you mean "whatever happened to" the ADA. Nothing "happened to" it. The court analyzed it and determined that it wasn’t' violated.

[SRG]

Re the Crum case – IIRC it is still the case in Britain that someone who has no insurable interest cannot benefit from an insurance policy, full stop.

[Davedave]

'Britain' is not a legal jurisdiction. And you're wrong about the other part, too.

https://www.purviscapital.com/what-are-traded-life-policies-and-traded-endowment-policies/

[SRG]

Britain is a jurisdiction – not an American one, but it is the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

My recollection may well be wrong, but citing a link from Singapore doesn’t show it. This suggests that I’m still right, though I'm happy to be proved wrong hence updating my knowledge.

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/general-insurance-manual/gim1050

FWIW I used to use a hypothetical bond collateralised by life insurance policies – or “viatical settlements” – in finance classes to show how it was possible to collateralise anything with cash flows and how valuation would be affected by model changes.

[Davedave]

"Britain is a jurisdiction – not an American one, but it is the jurisdiction of England and Wales."

Nope. Britain includes Scotland.

"citing a link from Singapore doesn’t show it."

Fair enough, I didn't look at the page closely enough.

https://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/traded-life-policy-investments
https://www.qq-life.co.uk/resources/can-i-sell-my-uk-life-insurance-policy/

[SRG]

"Britain includes Scotland".

For legal purposes, Scotland is separate; and Britain plus Scotland is Great Britain.

[Gandydancer]

What's not clear to me is how Couch was able to buy a collectable-upon life insurance policy while dying of AIDS. If it was somehow valid (nothing was misrepresented to the insurer?) and had value I don't see much obvious public policy benefit that ought to prevent him from cashing out that value with a sale.

[SRG]

Depends on the insurer's model of life expectancy for someone in Couch's state. The risk a buyer would take is if Couch did not have "clean hands" and hence the policy would be void(able).

[momo]

Stop this "Click here to learn more" silliness.

[elnurmamedrafiev]

If this lineup doesn't show why the country is beyond repair, and needs to be burned down so it can be rebuilt from the ground up, I don't know what does.

[SRG]

The case of that St Paul cop specifically - which runs counter to everything we're supposed to believe about the US.

[elnurmamedrafiev]

Exactly. The courts are not independent. They're branches of government that look to protect other branches of government.

[SRG]

Hopefully SCOTUS takes it up. If it doesn't, that would send a very strong and vile message.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There are some serious problems with the law in this country.

[elnurmamedrafiev]

It's very rational to require day care providers have college degrees. This way, they can go to expensive schools, borrow the money to pay for it, get "relief" from Biden and the other parasitic Democrats, the rich colleges get to donate to Democrat Party candidates and propagate poisonous left-wing ideas, and everyone wins! Everyone, except the taxpayers, of course.

Time to bring back to HUAC, and start executing leftists.

[LawTalkingGuy]

And you’d be willing to execute them yourself? Would you say shoot someone you deem a leftist in front of their kids? Would you kill the kids for good measure? Would you kill a child who expresses a left wing belief? How young?

What about your own family? Or your coworkers? Your teachers and maybe even your friends? People who have gotten you to where you are today? Would you kill them?

Do you have a list of who you would kill? Is it written down somewhere? Are you just waiting for the day you finally snap? Is your account going to disappear the day after a mass-shooting at a gay bar?

Would you kill me? If I gave you my name and location and you could get away with it, would you kill me because I’m a leftist?

[elnurmamedrafiev]

If I could push a button, and every left winger in America would drop dead, and yes, including family and coworkers, I would push the button in a heartbeat.

During Operation Condor, patriots in South America executed leftist agitators, and their countries were much more successful and stable after the fact.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So you would do it if it magically happened and you didn’t have to deal with the actual human fallout but you’re a squeamish coward who wouldn’t actually do it yourself in real life. Got it. Of course most right-wingers aren’t actual sociopathic monsters and I don’t think they’d be happy with you wiping out their families, magic or no. I don’t think you’d last very long in your stable paradise before you were brutally killed.

[elnurmamedrafiev]

I’m a patriot first. I’m willing to die for my nation (not my country). Random murders of individuals is not productive.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Lol you’re just a cowardly little sociopathic freak with violent fantasies. Enjoy your pathetic self-conception as a hero though.

[elnurmamedrafiev]

And you're a traitor seeking to destroy America for your perverted, anti-white desires.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It is both incredibly hilarious and deeply sad that you think this is a cutting remark.

[elnurmamedrafiev]

I hope you get a tumor.

[LawTalkingGuy]

And I hope you live a long and healthy life where you realize your edgelord schtick both is trite and pathetic.

[Frank Drackman]

Such an unintelligent comment. "Tumor"??? which can range from Small Cell Lung Cancer that will kill you in 4-6 weeks (See Paterno, Joe) to Basal Cell Skin Cancer that will make you look like that guy Hannibal Lector bit in the face, but never kill you, and can be cured in its early stages by a simple spritz of Nitrogen.
Like Hey-Zeuss said, "Love your Enemies" and if that doesn't work, use a 12 gauge (legally of course)

Frank "Blessed (with the curse of Beauty AND Brains)

[Dr. Ed 2]

LTG, there are a lot more like him that you might think.
This is why I quote Yeats....

[Frank Drackman]

Great poem, practically the only one I remember from the Semester of English Literature I took at that reknowned School of the Classics, Auburn (not "the" Auburn University, just Auburn, think the Round Mound of Rebound was in the class too)

Frank "Schlendering off to Buffalo"

[LawTalkingGuy]

A lot more pathetic losers? Yes I am aware of that.

[EscherEnigma]

You hear that? Another judge holding that cops have no more personal agency and responsibility then inanimate objects.

Remember, cops don't shoot people, people shoot themselves with cops.

[Gandydancer]

You seem to be talking about the suicide-by-cop case, which I haven't looked into but contains no obvious clues here that the cops were wrong to kill the guy.

[Michael P]

The appeals court's summary of what happened; the decedent is Justin, Michelle wanted a divorce from him, and she called 911 to report that he intended "suicide-by-cop":

Police officers soon arrived at Justin and Michelle’s residence, where Michelle warned them that Justin “want[ed] to die” and “intended to start shooting until law enforcement shot him.” Officers tried to de-escalate the situation by urging Justin to surrender peacefully. In response, Justin cursed at the officers and ran to his truck to retrieve his rifle. The officers fired non-lethal rubber bullets to deter him, but Justin reached the truck, “grabbed the rifle, spun around, and lifted the rifle to shoot the [officers].” The officers then shot and killed Justin.

If true, particularly the part about him pointing a rifle in the direction of any person, it sounds like a justified police shooting.

[Gandydancer]

Just grabbing the rifle under the described circumstances makes it a good shoot for me. No need to wait for him to point it. That's likely to be too late.

If true, of course. Cops are known to lie.

[Dr. Ed 2]

While she didn't get the life insurance claim, this solved the wife's problem of needing a divorce, and she got everything.

If there is "suicide by cop", is there "murder by cop"? Lord knows what she told the police...

[Drbusybody]

RE: JACKSONVILLE FOOD TRUCK CASE

You might be interested in a non-compete case out of Alabama a few years ago. One of the large hair salon chains, perhaps it was Regis, had its stylists sign a non-compete agreement that they wouldn't work for one year within two miles of any other Regis location. A court ruled the NCA was overbroad because if one overlaid a two mile radius circle on every Regis salon in Birmingham, those circles would basically cover every commercial district in the city. The court said it would be reasonable to restrict the stylist from working within a certain distance of the salon she actually worked at, but not to prohibit her from working anywhere in Birmingham.

Perhaps that kind of logic could extend to the food truck case.

[Davy C]

And in more new cert petition news, the D.C. Circuit recently ruled that it is rational for District of Columbia officials to require childcare workers to get a college degree.

Yeah, sorry, there's a rational basis. Not every bad idea is a constitutional violation, and the courts shouldn't be substituting their own judgement in for that of the other branches.

[elnurmamedrafiev]

When the other branches are composed of people elected by single women, 85 IQ blacks, limp-wristed homosexuals, non-Halakha following Jews, vegans, illiterate Mexican migrants, and other parasitic elements, they sure as hell should.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Is there any group of people you actually approve of, other than manly white males?

[elnurmamedrafiev]

I approve of Protestant white males, who are the best group to ever walk this Earth and who have created the modern world as we know it.

[David Nieporent]

That's just what we Jews want you to think.

[Dr. Ed 2]

David, White Protestants are far more supportive of Israel than American Jews are -- and what part of "kill the Jews" do American Jews not understand?

[Frank Drackman]

Hate to bust the spit bubble you live in, but the Object of your Pro-test-ant worship wasn't Protestant, arguably wasn't white (funny, no photos of Him) OK, does seem to be a Dude,
but hey, find a Bible and Google (oh wait, invented by a Jew) and look up what "INRI" stood for.
And besides providing your "Savior" you're welcome for not getting Polio, ever wear Blue Jeans?? (and even though they're probably Jessica Simpson, don't don't Google the Inventor of Levi's) Ever laugh at the 3 Stooges? (any real man does, supposedly even Charles Manson was a big "Moe" fan) and don't blame me for your Circumcision, (unless you were born in Mobile Alabama 1986-1987)
You probably think you're a tough guy, but more like Dog Shit, a temporary annoyance you scrape off your shoe.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Any coherent Christian knows that Jesus was an Observant Jew -- starting with the Last Supper being a Passover Seder. And the issue with the money changers was misunderstood -- Jesus was mad because they weren't observing Jewish law.

Apparently there was an Outer Temple, where business was routinely conducted -- including currency exchanges for travelers. Jesus had no problem with that -- his issue was that the people doing it were ripping people off. A lot of purported Christians take this passage into hatred of Jews in general and that is NOT what it is about -- it is hatred of crooks.

[Davy C]

Could you just not?

[Gandydancer]

Who said anything about the bogus "rational basis" test?

Why should depriving someone of the right to work in a common trade be subject to deprivation on such a low bar?

[Michael D]

It is DC so only the Constitution applies. Therefore the question for me regarding the constitutionality of requiring a college degree for child care is this: what enumerated power does the governing body which imposed this rule have to enact such a rule?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Start with the DC Self Governance Act.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Of course Congress can simply step in and legislate anything they damn well please regarding DC. I was expecting them to actually do that regarding the DC DPW a decade ago when they were having those snowstorms and the DC DPW was totally unable to clear the streets.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the authority to legislate ”in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States”. The District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973 devolved most general legislative powers to the municipal government (subject to Congressional review), and that government created the Office of the State Superintendent of Education, which issued the regulation at issue here.

[Davy C]

Hmm. But the power is "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District". I'd actually question their ability to delegate it to a municipal government, if this grant is "exclusive" and "in all Cases whatsoever".

[Dr. Ed 2]

The grant was not exclusive -- for example, it did not include St. Elizabeth's Hospital.

I can't remember why I know that...