Today in Supreme Court History: April 9, 1923

4/9/1923: Adkins v. Children's Hospital decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (decided April 9, 1923): striking down District of Columbia minimum wage law for women as interfering with freedom of contract (a right which, BTW, the Constitution does not protect against federal interference) (overruled by, among other cases, West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 1937)

NLRB v. Walton Mfg. Co., 369 U.S. 404 (decided April 9, 1962): Court of Appeals cannot apply stricter "substantial evidence" standard of review for NLRB reinstatement-and-back-pay decisions despite financial effect on employer; must apply same deferential standard as in cease-and-desist decisions

Schulz v. Pennsylvnia R.R. Co., 350 U.S. 523 (decided April 9, 1956): trial judge should not have directed verdict for defendant in Jones Act case; jury could have connected negligence (forcing husband tug operator to work on icy, cold night) with injury (finding his body in water with flashlight in his hand, even though he might have fallen for some other reason than slipping on ice)

Shepherd v. Florida, 341 U.S. 50 (decided April 9, 1951): reversing conviction of four black men for raping 17-year-old white girl, citing Cassell v. Texas, which held that exclusion of blacks from grand jury violated Due Process; Jackson, with Frankfurter concurring in judgment, noted that jurors had read press accounts that falsely stated men had confessed, unrecorrected by sheriff (reading their opinion, one sees that this was not the half of it); "these defendants were prejudged as guilty and the trial was but a legal gesture to register a verdict already dictated by the press and the public opinion which it generated"

Moser v. United States, 341 U.S. 41 (decided April 9, 1951): applying for exemption from military service during World War II (on the basis that he was a citizen of a neutral country, Switzerland) does not bar him from later applying for naturalization

Comm'r of Internal Revenue v. Smith, 324 U.S. 695 (decided April 9, 1945): for capital gains tax purposes stock of another corporation per stock option agreement with employer is valued at time stock is actually received and not when option exercised

Phipps v. Cleveland Refining Co., 261 U.S. 449 (decided April 9, 1923): fees for state inspection of petroleum products which provided revenue to the state far in excess of the cost to it of inspection burdened interstate commerce and violated Dormant Commerce Clause

Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. James, 125 U.S. 447 (decided April 9, 1888): patent suit involving design of post office boxes; patentee loses because defendant's design did not have key patent feature (boxes being connected such that one could not break into one without destroying the woodwork)

Sarlls v. United States, 152 U.S. 570 (decided April 9, 1894): beer is not "spiritous liquor or wine" under statute criminalizing bringing such into "Indian Country"

United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 341 U.S. 48 (decided April 9, 1951): taking of Indian lands is not "taking" under Fifth Amendment and therefore usual rule of no interest allowed on claims against United States applies

[Mr. Bumble]

"...“these defendants were prejudged as guilty and the trial was but a legal gesture to register a verdict already dictated by the press and the public opinion which it generated”

Sounds like Bragg's Trump case.

[Gandydancer]

...but only in Manhattan.

[Commenter_XY]

Happy Easter to all Christian VC Conspirators. My hope is that you have a meaningful Easter Sunday.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Faith without Works is dead, Mr. B.

[Mr. Bumble]

Given our imperfect nature, all we can do is try our best.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You can try a bit harder at times.

[Mr. Bumble]

And maybe follow your own advice?

[Mr. Bumble]

Response above was to your pre-edited comment. Yes, I suppose we can all try a bit harder. Happy Easter.

[Gandydancer]

Why only "you"?

[Krychek_2]

My standing Easter joke is making rabbit stew so I can say I had the Easter Bunny for Easter dinner. One year I made the mistake of telling that joke within earshot of a small child, who thought I had actually killed the Easter Bunny and started to cry. I’ve since been more careful.

[Frank Drackman]

So you said you "Killed the Rabbit"???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZTE9MDoaLs

Frank

[grb]

Krychek_2 : "..so I can say I had the Easter Bunny for Easter dinner."

Last September I hiked about 160 miles of the Kungsleden Trail in Sweden above the Arctic Circle. Sampling the local diet meant eating reindeer burgers, reindeer pasta, reindeer stew, reindeer jerky, and reindeer-favored cheese (the Swedes love favored cheese in a tube). I earned scowling disapprobation from the great nephews after mentioning this too close to the Xmas season (with its viewings of Rudolph)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Happy Easter to all reasoning Americans and especially their children. Chocolate, egg hunts, the Easter Bunny, Peeps, baskets . . . Easter has become much more than a religious day for a few in modern America.

Best American holidays (ranking for children in parentheses):
1) Thanksgiving (3)
2) Halloween (1)
3) New Year’s Eve (8)
4) Christmas (2)
5) Easter (4)
6) Fourth of July (5)
7) Mother’s Day (6)
8) Valentine’s Day (7)
9) Father’s Day
10) Opening Day
11) Memorial Day
12) Day after Thanksgiving

[Dan Schiavetta]

That sounds about right.

[Frank Drackman]

But don't you get a "Special Meal" at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx

[SRG]

De Santis would not appreciate HS students being taught about Shepherd, I think,

[Frank Drackman]

4 Black Guys raping a White Girl? (wasn’t there a basketball around?) There’s alot of Peoples who would not appreciate “Shepherd” being taught to HS students, especially if you tell “The Rest of the Story”(HT P. Harvey) ” After Irvin and Shepherd won a United States Supreme Court decision granting them new trials, Shepherd was shot and killed by the local sheriff, who claimed that he had stopped Shepherd from escaping. The sheriff also shot Irvin, but Irvin survived. He then was retried, convicted, and served almost twenty years in prison. Greenlee also served about fifteen years in prison.”

so it has a happy ending after all,

Frank “Believe the Women!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

[Nige]

A reminder that edgebot is pro-gangrape.

[Frank Drackman]

You're the ones celebrating 4 rapists getting away with it (none of them ended up getting away with it in the end) I'm the one who supports executing Rapists (why again is that Unconstitutional? we execute Babies who haven't had even had the chance to Rape anyone)

[Krychek_2]

Frank, almost no one believes that woman.

[Nige]

Edgebot, you love gang-rape, you've said so before.

[SRG]

To a Florida jury in Shepherd’s day and kind of case, guilt or innocence were effectively irrelevant. In “Devil in the Grove”, Thurgood Marshall tells his attorneys, if their client is convicted and sentenced to life, then they succeeded in persuading the jury he was innocent, because if the jury thought him guilty they’d have gone for the DP.

The point that you have no interest in getting is that there was FAPP, no true justice system for a black man in Florida – or elsewhere in the South – in those days accused of rape or murder.

I note that De Santis - yes, that one - issued a posthumous pardon. You neglected to mention that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Dukakis issued two -- Sacco & Vansetti -- and they were Italians.

[Frank Drackman]

De Sanits is still alive (Debatable) not really "Posthumerus"

[SRG]

It applies to the pardonees not the pardoner.

[Gandydancer]

Marshall is the guy who declared the death penalty unconstitutional. Which is looney. I wouldn't take his word for the color of the sky.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does a single Volokh Conspirator have the character or courage to address the strident bigotry that is one of the most prominent features of this blog?

Or the introspection necessary to consider whether to (1) continue to cultivate it or (2) continue to be associated with it?

The smart money is on "no."

Not a single one.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Cowards.

Partisan, bigoted (or at least bigot-friendly), hypocritical cowards. The kind who aim incessant, cherry-picked sniping at the modern American mainstream but don't have the character to say a word about rampant right-wing bigotry.

[Gandydancer]

Has he said he's in favor of excluding blacks from Grand Juries or is this your fevered imagination speaking?

[Gandydancer]

SRG: “De Santis would not appreciate HS students being taught about Shepherd, I think,”

You “think” that, eh? Yeah, I bet Desantis is really, really, opposed to SCOTUS’ decision in Shepherd v Florida…

Oh, wait…

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/us/groveland-four-pardon-desantis.html

Me, I think the pardon is a pretty dubious act on Desantis’ part, since I doubt if it was actually based on evidence of innocence. And the urge to virtue-signal to Lefty is a bad weakness in GOP pols. (Trump does it too.)

[Sarcastr0]

What's up with Texas trying to pardon a convicted murderer for seemingly partisan reasons? I thought it was super hard to fail a self defense justification in Texas, and this guy did.

What's the manifest injustice here?

[Frank Drackman]

Simple, Austin "Woke" Jury, guy'll be out this week.

[Mr. Bumble]

1. SarcastrO is never wrong
2. If SarcastrO is wrong see rule #1

[Sarcastr0]

Have an answer to how this is okay, or just gonna sit in a snit that I exist?

[Mr. Bumble]

1. SarcastrO is never wrong
2. If SarcastrO is wrong see rule #1

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Get a load of Mr Insult here demanding someone else actually respond without an insult.

[Sarcastr0]

I have no problem with insults; it's contentless comments I take issue with.

I take if you have no defense either, given this is how you're coming in.

[Mr. Bumble]

1. SarcastrO is never wrong
2. If SarcastrO is wrong see rule #1

[Krychek_2]

1. Mr. Bumble is never right.

2. Mr Bumble is never right so Rule 2 never applies.

[Life of Brian]

A shining example of how starting a story in the middle generally ain't for brevity. The amount of edgy prosecutorial gymnastics it took to get this case in front of a "Texas Blueberry" jury for the expected result would give Alvin Bragg a serious run for his money.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes.

'I have lots of important points to make; I just won't put them here.'

[Mr. Bumble]

1. SarcastrO is never wrong
2. If SarcastrO is wrong see rule #1

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Get a load of Mr Insult here demanding someone else actually respond without an insult.

[Sarcastr0]

He didn't respond with an insult, and I didn't demand that of him.

He did declare there were tons of things I didn't know, and then provided none of them.

[Mr. Bumble]

1. SarcastrO is never wrong
2. If SarcastrO is wrong see rule #1

[Life of Brian]

He did declare there were tons of things I didn’t know, and then provided none of them.

Actually, I credit you with knowing a good deal about them -- assuming you weren't just ignorantly running your mouth about something you'd just then heard about for the first time.

And with that knowledge, playing your usual troll-baiting game. I gave your comment exactly the level of detail it deserved -- no more and no less.

So buzz off. And happy Easter.

[Sarcastr0]

The amount of edgy prosecutorial gymnastics it took to get this case in front of a “Texas Blueberry” jury for the expected result

I have no idea what you're referring to here.

[Purple Martin]

Texas Tribune has a short, descriptive and objective article about it:

Gov. Greg Abbott backs call for pardon for Daniel Perry, who killed Austin protester in 2020
The governor says he asked the Board of Pardons and Paroles to expedite review, recommend clemency one day after Perry was convicted of murder.
BY WILLIAM MELHADO APRIL 8, 2023

Gov. Greg Abbott directed the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to consider recommending a pardon for Daniel Perry on Saturday, one day after a Travis County jury convicted the U.S. Army sergeant in the 2020 murder of Austin protester Garrett Foster.

After 17 hours of deliberations and an eight-day trial, jurors Friday found Perry guilty of murder for shooting and killing Foster, who was armed with an AK-47 as part of a group protesting police brutality. Perry, an Uber driver, had encountered the protest a few blocks from the Capitol in downtown Austin.

Under pressure from conservatives, Abbott announced Saturday that he asked the parole board to review Perry’s conviction on an expedited basis. The Texas Constitution, he said, requires the parole board to recommend a pardon before a governor could act.
...
Foster, who was a 28-year-old white man and an Air Force veteran, had been seen openly carrying an AK-47 rifle at the time, which was legal. There are conflicting accounts as to whether Foster raised the rifle to the driver before Perry, who was also legally armed, shot and killed Foster and fled the area, police said. He called the police and reported what happened, claiming he shot in self-defense after Foster aimed his weapon at him. Perry is also a white man.

Seems likely the usual commenters here will start defending the murder victim when they realize he was just a white man exercising his 2nd Amendment right to open-carry an AK-47 during a peaceful protest (or maybe he was just a tourist), just like the hundreds of Michigan peaceful protesters mobbing the Michigan capitol building in April/May 2020 (and then again in early January 2021, before their Republican Legislature’s Jan 11th decision to finally ban open carry on Capitol grounds).

[Frank Drackman]

You know, that Scourge of White on White crime!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I would imagine that, now that he’s been convicted by a jury, it’s his burden to prove his innocence to the satisfaction of a majority of the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Looking at their bios, it seems they’re mostly former law enforcement or former probation officers, with an Abbott advisor and a lawyer/former judge thrown in.

On the surface, they don’t seem to be the kind of people who can be bamboozled into giving an unconditional pardon to a guilty murderer – if that’s what this guy actually is.

Of course, if the guy managed to prove his innocence based on the evidence, they might be persuaded to recommend a pardon. If you think that’s likely, then of course you’re entitled to be concerned, but if you’re convinced the jury was on the up-and-up and made the right call, then I don’t see any reason to fear that these experienced criminal-justice types would impulsively turn a killer loose on the community.

And holding a hearing about whether the jury was right seems a better idea than the left’s usual approach to jury verdicts – to take cues from the media to denounce vehemently the verdicts they dislike, and to pressure juries into reaching a predetermined outcome.

[Sarcastr0]

There was a trial.

You're arguing that a second bite at the apple if you kill a liberal is cool and good so long as there is a process.

the left’s usual approach to jury verdicts – to take cues from the media to denounce vehemently the verdicts they dislike, and to pressure juries into reaching a predetermined outcome.
Yeah, this isn't a thing.

I did not see the right turning juries into another part of the liberal conspiracy coming.

[Mr. Bumble]

1. SarcastrO is never wrong
2. If SarcastrO is wrong see rule #1

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"You’re arguing that a second bite at the apple if you kill a liberal is cool and good so long as there is a process."

Nope.

"Yeah, this isn’t a thing."

https://flxt.tmsimg.com/NowShowing/7525/7525_aa.jpg

[Nige]

Are you... gaslighting yourself?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm simply impressed by Sarcastro's ability to ignore the Chauvin trial, the Rittenhouse verdict, "Free Mumia," et. al.

[Nige]

Not sure what any of those prove.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

That it *is* a thing.

[Nige]

Not really. I'd be more concerned about the tendency of judges in cases related to Trump to be deluged with death threats.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It’s possible to assimiliate an idea without pushing another idea out of your head to make room for it.

In this specific context, it is wrong to try to influence judges and juries with violence or threats of violence. My assumption is that people who do such things are on the same side, the side of badness.

Yet Abbott isn’t threatening violence from any direction, he’s calling for a due-process hearing, without violence, to decide whether the jury was right.

[Nige]

Abbott has made it pretty clear what he wants.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

But he can't get it unilaterally, he has to ask for it.

[Nige]

He seems pretty miffed about that, too.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm sure his feelz are hurt, but so what? He has to stay within the limits of the state Constitution.

[Nige]

Goes towards character, both of Abbott (NOT DESANTIS!) and the modern right.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A pardon is intended for the guilty.

[Mr. Bumble]

Want to rethink that?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Clemency includes…pardons based on innocence...”

https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/bpp/exec_clem/exec_clem.html

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon (Man!) I know you're an Expert in everthing who knows almost nothing about everything,
but that's just, hmm. what's the legal term,
"Stultus Ut Irrumabo"

Frank

[Noscitur a sociis]

I would imagine that, now that he’s been convicted by a jury, it’s his burden to prove his innocence to the satisfaction of a majority of the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

You would imagine incorrectly.

Governor Abbott has already publicly announced that he intends to pardon

[Life of Brian]

Governor Abbott has already publicly announced that he intends to pardon

Which he can only do in response to a recommendation by the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/bpp/exec_clem/exec_clem.html

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Yes, indeed, and here's another link. The Texas Constitution is a bit different from the federal:

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/htm/CN.4/CN.4.11.htm

The governor needs the recommendation of a majority of the Board in order to act in such cases, and the Board has to keep records of what it does and the reasons.

Just in case you’re worried that getting pardoned in Texas is too easy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Massachusetts is the same way, but in reverse -- the Governor pardons and the a majority of the Governor's Council (a legacy of British Colonial days) has to vote to approve it.

[Gandydancer]

The trial was in Austin? That would answer Sarcast0's question. Austin isn't really populated by Texans.

[Frank Drackman]

That he was convicted of shooting a BLM terrorist armed with "The Favorite Weapon of Terrorists", an AK-47 (actually a semiautomatic version, but who's interested in facts?) who was attempting to turn over his car and kill him.
Killed a guy trying to kill him with a rifle with a pistol.
Only thing I'd have convicted him of was "Damn Good Shooting"

Of Course Trial was in Austin, which is like Berkely moved into a Godforsaken semi-desert,

Frank

[bevis the lumberjack]

I have no opinion on this because I haven’t followed it, but I’ll explain the logic without expressing an opinion on it.

The event and the prosecution occurred in Travis County - Austin - which is nothing like the rest of Texas in its attitude toward self defense. Or almost anything else.

The case supposedly involves a BLM protest at which a protester pointed a gun at a counter-protester, who shot him. The prosecutor in Travis County is one of the progressive type, who allegedly prosecuted the shooter for political reasons. So the governor wants to make it right.

Again, I haven’t followed this at all and make no statement on right or wrong here. But you asked so I gave you the gist of it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems right except that Perry wasn't a counter protester, but an Uber driver dropping off a fare.

[David Nieporent]

And the protester didn't point a gun at him.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I guess “I haven’t followed this at all and make no statement on right or wrong” wasn’t explicit enough for you. Some say he did, some say he didn’t, I say I don’t know.

Want me to defend something that I didn’t say?

[Sarcastr0]

DMN wasn't replying to you.

[Gandydancer]

Who was he replying to? Bumble didn't declare that he'd pointed the AK-47, either.

Nopoint was just volunteering a baseless claim apropos of nothing except the opportunity to express his biases.

[Nige]

Seems an important aspect of a murder case where both murderer and victim were armed, no?

[Gandydancer]

Maybe it ought to be, but a conviction isn't proof of any fact except its own existence.

[Nige]

It proves the Defence couldn't prove he did.

[Gandydancer]

Actually, it doesn't prove that, either. The jury could convict him even if the defense proved the AK-47 was pointed at him. More importantly IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE DEFENSE TO PROVE HIM INNOCENT.

Again, Nopoint's claim "And the protester didn’t point a gun at him" was pulled directly from his ass. Perry says it was, the AK-476's owner's confederates claim otherwise, and the video doesn't settle the issue. So Perry should have been acquitted because self-defense was not disproved.

Unless there was some evidence introduced at the trial of which I am unaware. But none such has been trumpeted that I have seen.

[Mr. Bumble]

1. David Nieporent is always right.
2. If David Nieporent is wrong see rule #1.

[Frank Drackman]

Well that's the point of shooting someone who's in the process of pointing a gun at you, to kill them before they have the gun pointed at you.
Ever have a gun pointed at you?
Of course not.

[Nige]

‘supposedly’

Hang on, there’s been a trial and verdict, either it did or it didn’t.

‘who allegedly prosecuted the shooter for political reasons.’

Or the pardon is political, because it ought to be ok to shoot BLM protestors.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I was disciplined enough to not express an opinion on it because I don’t have the basis for a well formed opinion.

You, OTOH, must express an opinion on it even though you know less about it than I do because you are compelled to express opinions on everything despite the complete absence of knowledge. The next well formed opinion you express will be your first, but none of us are holding our breath waiting.

[Nige]

You expressed what is supposedly 'the logic' of the pardon, fair enough, though whether Abbott himself has expressed any of this is unclear. My point was the trial and verdict are on the record so surely the 'logic' is easy enough to substantiate. But also, apparently, expressing the flip side of the 'logic' you presented is enough to make you mad?

[bevis the lumberjack]

The trial and verdict is on the record every time someone innocent is convicted. In this case, both the DA and the governor very well might be doing something for political reasons rather than right or wrong reasons. Beats me.

I’m gonna go have an Easter.

[Nige]

Yes, so if they are innocent, you can usually point to problems with the trial and verdict.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What are the reasons given by the people who are advocating for a pardon?

[Frank Drackman]

That he shot a piece of shit BLM terrorist armed with an AK-47 ("Favorite Weapon of Terrorists" I think I've only heard a billion times on the Marxist Stream Media) who was trying to turn his car over and kill him,
To bad the Piece of Shit BLM terrorist was too slow on the trigger, or he'd be one of Sleepy Joe's "Medal of Freedom Winners" next to OJ and Al Sharpton.

Frank

[Nige]

'Abbott said in a tweet that Texas has one of the strongest "Stand Your Ground" self-defense laws that "cannot be nullified by a jury or progressive district attorney."'

He seems to be claiming that he, as Governor, can decide whether something is self defence or not?

[Frank Drackman]

Correct, need me to spell it out in Braile?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So you don't know what the arguments really are for why this case needs pardoning, yet you're arguing about it.

Think about the smartest person you know, do you think that's what they do?

Now think about the stupidest person you know, do you think that's what THEY do?

[Sarcastr0]

A jury - the finder of fact in such things - weighed the evidence, including that testimony, and made a determination of what the evidence best indicated happened.

It's kinda fucked up to second guess that process to give more of a benefit of the doubt, if you kinda like the killing.

[Nige]

‘So you don’t know what the arguments really are’

We do, insofar as Abbott has made his arguments, those are them, unless he's made more substantial ones since that I haven't seen.

Nice to see two massive racists like yourselves taking a side.

[David Nieporent]

Same as your reason for all of your positions: racism. Perry killed someone protesting police brutality (yes, I know the person he killed was white, but the guy was protesting with BLM), so therefore it was justified.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

And you haven't heard what the investigating officer testified to?

That he was justified and the DA hid exculpatory evidence?

[Frank Drackman]

I know! How dare he shoot the guy with the AK47 before the guy with the AK47 could shoot him!

[Sarcastr0]

"the DA hid exculpatory evidence"

Funny Abbot isn't make that argument. He'd rather just be a partisan than tie himself to whatever nonsense you're on about.

[David Nieporent]

And you haven’t heard what the investigating officer testified to?

That he was justified and the DA hid exculpatory evidence?

The investigating officer testified to no such thing, because that's inherently contradictory. What the investigating officer testified to was that the prosecutor didn't present this supposedly "exculpatory" evidence to the grand jury. But (a) that's not required, and (b) the cop presented all of this evidence to the jury itself, which rejected it; it wasn't exculpatory.

As to whether he was justified, that's the responsibility of the jury to decide, not a cop.

[Mr. Bumble]

1. David Nieporent is always right.
2. If David Nieporent is wrong see rule #1.

[Nige]

Mr Bumble has perfected his whipped-dog whine.

[Gandydancer]

bevis “The case supposedly involves a BLM protest at which a protester pointed a gun at a counter-protester, who shot him.”

Nitwit: “Hang on, there’s been a trial and verdict, either it did or it didn’t.”

There’s been a trial and verdict, so O.J.Simpson (my Potrero Hill neighbor) is innocent!

So, no, whether the AK-47 was pointed at Perry is still merely supposition.
No one is required to believe it either was or was not, dumbass.

[Nige]

'is still merely supposition.'

Is that the finding of the court or the jury or what, that it's merely supposition?

[Gandydancer]

The finding of the jury was that Perry is guilty of murder.

That the person he killed did or didn’t point the AK-47 at him is not, I believe, proven by the evidence.

It’s truly bizarre that you claim this distinction does not exist.

Particularly on the same page where multiple Leftys assetr that the juries got it wrong multiple times in the case of the Groveland Four.

[Nige]

Well, if the Defence couldn't prove the victim DID point it, there goes the case.

You can usually conclude whether a jury's verdict was questionable through careful examination of court records, not just because the Governor immedietely decides he wants the guilty party pardoned.

[Gandydancer]

You’ve got it backasswards. If the PROSECUTION can’t prove that the AK-47 wielder didn’t put the shooter in reasonable fear for his life THEN “there goes the case” AGAINST the shooter.

And YOU are not endorsing the jury’s verdict based a “careful examination of court records”, are you? How typical of Lefty to not apply his alleged standards to himself.

[Gandydancer]

About the "counter-protester" bit: Perry wasn't a counter-protester, AFAIK. Though he was anti-BLM rioters, it seems. His car was surrounded by BLM marchers in an intersection and whether the AK-47 guy was a credible threat to him is, again AFAIK, he said-she said. There's video, but not very informative video. My knowledge of this hasn't been updated since 2020.

[Brett Bellmore]

I actually found the interview of the 'victim' more interesting; He was carrying the rifle because, essentially, he knew it was illegal for them to be obstructing traffic in the streets, but they meant to anyway. So he brought a gun in order to intimidate anyone who objected.

[Gandydancer]

Yes, I recall that he was interviewed before getting himself shot dead. But I guess he's one of those Artie calls our "betters" and Special People like that can't be resisted when they point guns at you. At least in Austin.

[Nige]

Everyone who open carries is doing so for intimidation, why else bother? But you guys support that form of intimidation?

[Gandydancer]

How typical of Lefty to refuse to make an inconvenient distinction between intimidation of possible attackers and "intimida[tion of] anyone who objected [to Lefty illegally] obstructing traffic in the streets."

[SRG]

Texas is not known for being quick to respond to a murder conviction. Perhaps indeed the convict is innocent, but seldom does Texas give a shit about innocence either.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Tell me about it. I support the innocence project down here. Trying to get something done done even in the case of plainly obvious innocence is like trying to pull a lion’s teeth.

[Frank Drackman]

So you'll be happy when he's pardoned tomorrow??
Of course not, because he's not a nigger

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Has the incessant bigotry at this blog reached the point at which legitimate law schools could reasonably take action against the right-wing professors who cause this disgusting, predictable bigotry to be associated with those schools?

How does the Conspirators’ silence concerning this blog’s bigotry (beyond the content that invites or constitutes the bigotry) influence the analysis?

[Nige]

Racist edgebot is racist.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What criticisms of the DA and his handling of this case are you familiar with?

[Frank Drackman]

That the case was brought to court. How many murder convictions get pardoned in less than a week?

[Gandydancer]

I'm familiar enough with the case to think it hardly likely that guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, It's he said-he said with highly motivated witnesses.

[David Nieporent]

What’s up with Texas trying to pardon a convicted murderer for seemingly partisan reasons?

Um, I think the phrasing of the question answers the question.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yes because God knows that only Texas has situations in which politics infects prosecution and pardon decisions. The politicians in all of the other 49 are statesman with unassailable integrity and the judgment of Solomon.

[Nige]

'only Texas'

God, no. Where was Trump when he pardoned his cronies?

[Frank Drackman]

Same Place Jerry Ford, Jimmuh Cartuh (Pardoned Patty Hearst? Hey Now!) Reagan, GHWB, Bill Clinton, "W", Barry Hussein

the White House, District of Colored Peoples,

it's where the POTUS lives,

Frank

[Nige]

Racistedgebot knows where the President lives.

[Gandydancer]

You keep using the words "I thought", but we know that's always a lie.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is a bit more to Schulz v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co. — It wasn’t just that it was a cold night with ice on the boats, but that (a) none were lit and (b) being forced to do the work of four men, he had to climb between the boats in the dark. From the opinion:

“While some facts were in dispute, there was evidence from which a jury could have found: on Christmas Day, 1949, at about 5:15 p.m., the deceased, Schulz, reported for work on his job at Pier H, Jersey City, New Jersey, and was assigned to work on four tugboats docked side by side there. He went immediately to check the boats without waiting to change from his street to his working clothes. Returning to the pier alongside the tugs about seven o’clock, Schulz reported that he had finished his checking and was now going back to the boats to change to his work clothes and proceed with his other duties there. He was last seen alive walking in the direction of the nearest tug. At 1:25 a.m., a supervisor found Schulz was not on the boats. His street clothes were hanging in the upper engine room, where the tug attendants usually changed clothes. His lunch package was also there. Three of the tugs were at all times wholly unlighted and dark; one was partially illuminated by spotlights from the pier. The night was cold — 10 above zero — and there was some ice on the tugs. Because the company did not have enough workers that night properly to perform the duties that were required, Schultz had to try to take care of all four tugs by himself. To do this, he had to step from one boat to another in the dark, except for such limited illumination as he could obtain from a flashlight.”

*That’s* the “failure to provide safe workplace” — not the mere “forcing husband tug operator to work on icy, cold night.” It was the Jones Seaman’s Act because they were tugs, and because it was a railroad, Jones deferred to the railroad employee’s law and that guaranteed a jury trial.

NB: I *think* this was when trains, at least freight trains, still crossed the Hudson on barges, and hence needed tugs to move them. And being found "clad only in his shorts & sox" probably was because he got rid of the other clothes when he fell in so he could swim. That was standard USN training at the time.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks

[Dr. Ed 2]

Apparently they're still taking freight trains across the river on barges. See: https://untappedcities.com/2017/02/02/behind-the-scenes-at-the-floating-freight-rail-line-that-crosses-the-hudson-river-in-nyc/

[Dan Schiavetta]

I’ve seen those go by, when on the Henry Hudson Parkway. You can’t believe what you’re seeing.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today is the anniversary of Lee's surrender to his betters.

Great day for America. Bad day for America's bigots, traitors, and losers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do you honestly think the North won that war?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Okay, I’ll bite.

Which side do you think won the Civil War?

[Frank Drackman]

Yes it was, General Grant, and all of the Slave Owners in Kentucky, Missouri, (West) Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware who had to give up their legally owned Slaves (Did they? until the 13th Ammendment was ratified, Guess which states rejected it? Hint, 3 of the 4 were Union states) Did you know THAT Coach Sandusky? seriously, your career was based on "Follow your Keys" "Pursue the Ball" "Play to the Whistle"
Oh, and weren't all the Slaves freed with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863?? Actually none were as it only applied to the areas "Still in Rebellion" and not to areas Lincoln could have done something about, i.e. Kentucky, Missouri, (West) Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware.

But HT, way to courageously come out against Slavery, people should have to get their Sex Slaves the honest way, like Jerry Sanudusky did
Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

He did free the slaves in DC -- he bought them.

[Frank Drackman]

Dr. Ed 2 (No Homo) I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship (No Homo)
Couldn't remember when Slavery was outlawed in DC (they just had to move to Silver Spring) and Yes, I know, they built the Whitehouse (Ironic, Blacks building the Whitehouse, like Whites would ever build a "Blackhouse" heck, good luck finding Whites building anything today)

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

We may be approaching the point at which even the Volokh Conspirators, who cultivate this blog's audience, figure there might be a bit too much bigotry here.

They won't do anything about it, though. Commenters get censored or banned by the Volokh Conspiracy for using certain words to criticize conservatives, or for making fun of conservatives a bit too deftly for the proprietor's taste, but everyone is welcome to launch as many vile racial slurs as a Republican racist's heart desires at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Carry on, clingers. So far as stale, ugly conservative thinking could carry anyone in modern, improving America.

[Gandydancer]

They don’t belong to us and we don’t belong to them. Being illegal they should first be put on chain gangs or other punishment details to deter them from repeating their violation, then deported. There are no scare quotes missing anywhere in that sentence.

[Dan Schiavetta]

No.

Citizens of other countries could (and can) be drafted.

[F.D. Wolf]

The Treaty of 1850 between the U.S. and Switzerland exempted citizens of one country from being drafted into the military service of the other country. The Selective Service Act stated that citizens of neutral countries were exempt from military service, but those that were granted the exemption were thereafter barred from becoming U.S. citizens.

Moser claimed that his right to exemption came wholly from the treaty and that the proviso in the SSA was inapplicable to his case. The Court agreed.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks.

One doesn’t even have to be here legally, not even to enlist. The first soldier to die for us in Iraq was an undocumented alien, Jose Gutierrez.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Service in our military used to be a path to citizenship.

[Frank Drackman]

"Undocumented"??
must have made it difficult for him to get on base without an Identification Card.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not sure you are right on this. This is six years old so some changes might have occurred.

https://stories.avvo.com/rights/immigration/can-immigrants-serve-us-military-8-rules-non-citizen-service.html

[Frank Drackman]

He was actually very well "Documented" being granted Asylum, then joining an actual Asylum, the US Marine Corpse (HT Barry Hussein)

[John F. Carr]

I knew a Canadian citizen who joined the Coast Guard to avoid being drafted to go to Vietnam.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Citizens of other countries could (and can) be drafted."

Right as far a "could", wrong as far as can since the draft ended in 1973. However, reinstatement of selective service registration in 1980 does require all males between 18-26 to register.

Moser case was based on an 1850 treaty between the US and Switzerland granting exemption to each country's citizens from service in the other.

[David Nieporent]

Citizens of other countries could (and can) be drafted.

Which is another reason why the 14th amendment misreading that tries to eliminate birthright citizenship is wrong. Everyone in the U.S. other than foreign diplomats, members of invading armies, and (at one point in time) Indians is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

[Frank Drackman]

Rapist was convicted at his Re-trial, sentenced to the Chair, somehow got released on Parole in 1968, died of a Heart Attack in 1969 at age 41.
Hey, you're the ones saying "Believe the Women" and then when I do, get called a Race-ist.
and the "Basketball" thang to reduce crime was proposed by Hilary Rodman's Husband, seemed to work pretty well, or maybe it was all the Executions in the 1990's one of which a "Retarded" Black Man in Arkansas (do I here Ricky Ray Rector? Going Once, Going Twice, Gone!!)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

So you’re saying illegal aliens belong to the country of their birth?

[Nige]

Ah come on, that's his level, don't go there.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, thats really immaterial, irrelevant, and Incompetent,
and I turned on my own Cartoons, (Mom worked at the Base Hospital) and only time she was around a "Bunch of Black Guys" was at my Junior High Basketball Banquet where it was all "Bunch of Black Guys" except for me, mom, the Coach, and his wife.
And because of my intimate relationship with my mom (HT Freud)
pretty sure if she went into a bedroom with a "Bunch of Black Guys" she'd be the only one to walk out alive.

Frank "don't make me talk about your Cock Sucking mother"

[Frank Drackman]

It's blithering Moron, thank you. OK, and as he was granted Asylum in the US, he was able to join the (Certifiable) Asylum of the US Marine Corpse (HT Barry Hussein O)
Because it's not like your average Amurican is going to join the Military (The Army?!?!? have you seen those Berets??) Navy's actually moved the the 21st Century, and Air Force is like going to UCLA while wearing a cool uniform, and getting paid,
Funny thing is I'm pretty sure "Danang Dick" Blumental still has a "Reserves" ID card so he can stock up on cheap Booze at the Base "Class VI" (You know he has one of his flunkies doing it)

Frank

[David Nieporent]

You are confusing the question of who can enlist under the current statutory regime with the question of who can be drafted under a different statutory regime.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"somehow got released on Parole in 1968, died of a Heart Attack in 1969 at age 41."

Compassionate release of the dying? Cardiac conditions were often terminal illnesses back then.

Mass DOC is often accused of releasing the terminally ill so that their medical care comes from Medicaid and not their budget.

[Frank Drackman]

Sounds like some Queenie got a Panhandle stuck where the sun don't shine.
What about your Mother, Queenie? Did she fuck a bunch of Niggers in a back room? Spicks? Chinks? Hebes? (Yeah, like a bunch of Jewish guys would fuck anything in a back room "Murray, my Sinuses are all verklemmpt!, Will she take Diners Club? I left my wallet at the Hotel!!, "Is it really pink in the inside??")
How many Abortions did she have (want to have?) and I can tell everything I need to know about someone from the Tatoo/Teeth Ratio,
I'm guessing +30??

Frank "Don't even start, all my Teeth (even Wisdom), no Tatoos,

[bevis the lumberjack]

Say something stupid and insulting, get an irritated answer.

Ever heard of Ray Blanton? Matt Bevin? At least there’s no indication that if he does this that Abbott -who I detest, remember - is doing this for money.

Thank goodness for Nieporent he lives in a place where the politicians are all canonized after they leave office.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

He wants to grant a pardon, but to do this he needs a recommendation from the Board. He hasn’t pretended he can force the Board to recommend anything.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I read his comment as 1. Explaining why he hasn’t issued the pardon already and 2. Telling the Board to get moving on it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy: Official Legal Blog of Unreconstructed Right-Wing Bigots

Carry on, clingers. So far as better Americans permit.

[Frank Drackman]

He was 40 when released
Pretty sure they didn't do Cardiac Caths on Florida State Inmates in 1968, because they didn't do Cardiac Caths on anyone in 1968.
He was "Relocated" to Miami, as the peoples who still wanted to kill him for raping their relative (Floridians really don't like peoples who rape their relatives). He died after a night of "Nightclubbing", Yay Democracy!!!

[Frank Drackman]

I believe in the Shrink-Biz they call that, "Splitting"
You could look that up if you had the intellect of a Pongo pygmaeus
So this cums (get it) on who's mom fucked more niggers?? (and why the Panama Canal? Why not the Suez? Erie?)
And who gives a fuck who your mom fucked, my Mom grew up in Potsdam Germany, 1950's (Not many Niggers) came to Atlanta in the early 1960's for Nursing School (Lots of Niggers)
somehow married my Dad in 1961, I came in 1962, and hilarity ensued,
OK, guess there could have been a bunch of Niggers fucking her over the years, you know the Base Housing in the 1970's was really Huge,

Seriously, Queenie, you're like one of those annoying kids on the St Judes Commercials, don't know what Brain Tumor you have, don't care, and will enjoy Jap slapping the shit out of you umm,
until I get "banned"

Frank

[bevis the lumberjack]

Don’t get me wrong and think I’m defending the integrity of Texas politicians. Our current AG has been under indictment for fraud for several years now. I guess someday it will occur to someone that there needs to be a trial.

The most famous bit of Texas political corruption kicked off the national political career of a future president. My guys and gals can cheat with the best of ‘em.

I’m merely saying that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, and when it comes to American politics all of us are living in glass houses.

[Sarcastr0]

How is this not special pleading?

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, changing dressing on wounded from Veet-Nam, comforting Veterans dying from Lung CA/COPD (about all they could do back then, about all they can do now), Kids s/p (I'd tell you) the kids screaming after Tonsillectomies almost every kid got back then (not me, cause she saw how ridiculous it was) Women in Labor, Women who had miscarriages, (such a bad term "Spontaneous Abortion", goes on their "Permanent Record" as an "Abortion"
But because 1: You have the "ARD" Aids Releated Dementia 2: It's AlGores Internet's and you're probably AlGore, 3: Duels have been illegal for 100 years, and shooting you would be like shooting one of those Mongoloids on the "St Judes" Commercials

You get a "Freebe"

Print this out and take it to McDonalds, they know me,

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

All that is off topic.

Quite this 'Dems are bad so you can't complain about this wrongdoing.'

Don't pretend only you can judge; that's not how this works. Stay on topic.

[David Nieporent]

I'm libertarian (or "classical liberal," if you prefer). Not conservative at all.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I’m not sure what you’re worried about…a bunch of ex-law-enforcement and ex-parole officials on the Pardon Board were asked to recommend a pardon. The governor can’t force them to do this, and unless they do, the sentence stands.

In the federal system, the President can give pardons unilaterally. But in Texas, the governor needs a recommendation from the Board.

If the Board doesn’t act, the governor’s opinion counts for nothing.

You're confident in the verdict, aren't you? Or do you think the Board is soft on crime or corrupt in some way? What would be the basis for such a belief?

[bevis the lumberjack]

That’s not at all what I said, but you never can just limit yourself to reading what someone actually says. I didn’t say a word about democrats and I have explicitly avoided judging this.

David made a joke about Texas having corrupt politicians and I pointed out that everywhere has corruption politicians.

You inserted yourself into our back and forth with a ridiculous interpretation of what I said. Your “stay on topic” bullshit is particularly annoying when you’re the one changing the subject

[Gandydancer]

Just because no one is being drafted doesn't mean aliens (and others) can't be drafted. Should our war with Russia stop being exclusively by proxy it could happen at any time.

[Gandydancer]

YOU are wrong. Indians born on the territory of the US were NOT made citizens by the 14th Amendment.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not really. The alleged misreading just considers illegal immigrants to be relevantly similar to members of invading armies: They're present in the US contrary to our laws.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That explains the reflexive defense of Prof. Volokh. Just a couple of libertarians who always and inexplicably get mistaken for right-wingers.

[David Nieporent]

Um, that's what I said. I listed three exceptions to birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment:

1) Foreign diplomats
2) Members of invading armies
3) Indians

The Indian category was a bit more nuanced than that — it was not a racial category, but refers to Indians born as members of a quasi-sovereign tribe — but that nuance was not really germane to my point.

[David Nieporent]

My comment was not really intended to be a joke, and was not about "corrupt" politicians per se. Rather, Sarcastr0 asked, "Why did this politician make a seemingly partisan decision?" So I was pointing out that the question answers itself.

It's like asking, "What's up with Ford raising prices seemingly to increase its profits?"

[Sarcastr0]

No one else gets this chance. You can talk about how official this chance is, and ignore the immense political pressure.
But even giving another chance to examine the vide cue after the jury did is special pleading, bad process, and you don’t care.

Confident of the verdict has nothing to do with it. This process is fucked.

[Nige]

At this point it merely depends on whether the Board's politics aligns with DeSantis. Ex LEO might be sympathetic to someone shooting a BLM protestor. I mean, I would hope not, it's just that it's not a given. Also, the fact that DeSantis is pushing for this so hard and so fast is an issue in and of itself, whether it succeeds or not.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

DeSantis isn’t the governor of Texas.

The governor of Texas is Greg Abbott.

“you don’t care”

OK, Kreskin, I’m thinking of a number between1 and 1,000. Read my mind and tell me which number it is.

I suggested that it's hardly the end of the world for the Board to re-examine a jury verdict, unless you've made up your mind that they're corrupt. You're not even open to a due-process hearing to re-examine a case in which one of the prosecutors resigned rather than take part.

Let me try to read *your* mind - you approve the result of the trial, not because you've studied the evidence and care so much about the integrity of jury verdicts, but because you looked at who was involved, who was on your side and who was on the other side, and approve the conviction of someone on the other side.

That, and Nige's inability to tell one right-wing bogeyman from another, indicate that your reactions are simply your lizard-brain responses to culture-war cues.

[Sarcastr0]

You are defending this shot, it's a bit late to play cagey with your integrity.

it’s hardly the end of the world for the Board to re-examine a jury verdict, unless you’ve made up your mind that they’re corrupt.
You are shit at reading.

As I've told you twice now, the Board's integrity doesn't matter. Factual calls area always up in the air. Political pressure is high.

AND NONE OF THAT MATTERS. A second chance is a second chance, and a second chance reserved for people who kill liberals is fucking awful, and no amount of you playing illiterate will change that.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Gaslighting, mind-reading...never change, Sarcy.

[Sarcastr0]

In Texas you can (a) announce that you'd like to gun down a BLM protestor, (b) set out to deliberately provoke a confrontation with a BLM protestor by driving into a crowd, (c) gun down a BLM protestor, and (d) get the governor to push a pardon, who says the killing was self-defense.

I'm not gaslighting or reading your mind. In the words you type you are defending the above by leaning on the pardon board maybe not bowing to the governor's desire. That doesn't make the above shit okay!

But you act like it is. You are bad and should feel bad.

[Nige]

'DeSantis isn’t the governor of Texas.'

Jesus, what a faux pas! Sorry for the brain fart.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Sarcy,

So the mask is off – now you’ve dropped the pretense of deferring to a jury and simply stating as an objective fact that the guy is guilty.

That’s a more honest approach, since I don’t think you actually believe in the sanctity of jury verdicts. In fact, your suggestion is that you know the facts so well that the jury *had to* convict.

Pardon me if I neither accept nor reject your defense of the verdict, contrary to your mind-reading and straw-manning, and that I don’t accept your gaslighting about the left-wing approach to jury verdicts. You’ve confirmed that the legitimacy of a verdict depends on whether you agree with it, in your bizarre worldview.

One *might* think that if the verdict was self-evidently just, and was being attacked for political purposes by evil people, you’d look forward to a ruling by the Board of Pardons confirming your version of reality – that the conviction was legitimate and that only bad people would say otherwise. What an excellent talking point it would provide you and yours if the Board agrees with the verdict! Yet you *still* don’t want the Board to look into the conviction.

That’s because you’re a bad person with a Vishynskian view of justice – you think guilt depends on a person’s politics.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

For my own part, I'm genuinely curious to learn the Board's view (if it chooses to express a view) on whether the verdict is a bad one, or whether it's a good one attacked by bad people. No skin off my nose if the Board finds the verdict was correct.

You, on the other hand, lack curiosity, or rather, it's enough for you that a liberal got shot to know that the shooter is guilty. It *would* be skin off your nose if the Board investigated and found problems with the verdict.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure where you're getting that "quasi" from, unless you just mean that the US routinely violated their sovereignty. Legally, they WERE sovereign. They were just sovereign nations we routinely violated the rights of, and broke treaties with.

[Gandydancer]

You clearly implied that Indians at were “at one point in time” not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but now are and therefor get citizenship under the 14th Amendment. But tribal Indians in fact did not AND CANNOT get citizenship under the 14th Amendment, as the legislative history of that Amendment makes perfectly clear. They instead get citizenship at birth through legislation under Congress power of naturalization.

This is despite the fact that they are born on the territory of the US and subject to the ordinary jurisdiction (but not the “complete” jurisdiction — see the Senate debate) of the US, whatever the allegiance of their parents to other sovereign states (or "quasi" states, if you prefer).

Which puts the lie to your truly ignorant and bizarre claim that the fact that Indians can be drafted somehow says what you claim it says about birthright citizenship.

As I said, “YOU are wrong.”