Today in Supreme Court History: May 22, 1807

5/22/1807: Aaron Burr is indicted on charges of treason. Chief Justice John Marshall would preside over Burr's trial.

Aaron Burr

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group, 581 U.S. --- (decided May 22, 2017): patent suit must be brought in defendant’s state of incorporation under patent venue statute (28 U.S.C. §1400(b)) despite later revision of general venue statute (§1391) with broader language

Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. --- (decided May 22, 2017): deferring to District Court’s factual determination rejecting North Carolina’s redistricting because no reason was shown for increasing percentage of black voters in two districts; plaintiffs (registered voters) not collaterally estopped by State’s victory in racial gerrymandering suit brought by civil rights groups

Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 581 U.S. --- (decided May 22, 2017): Hague Service Convention (to which the U.S. is a signatory) allows service of suit abroad by mail (suit was by water park against Canadian employee for giving design drawings to competitor)

Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (decided May 22, 1995): police did not have to knock first when entering house with a warrant (front door was open; evidence properly admitted that police found defendant flushing drugs down the toilet)

Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (decided May 22, 2006): police responding to a disturbance did not need a warrant to enter house after they saw through a screen door one person punch another, causing spitting blood, and after they knocked first though their knocking was not heard

Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (decided May 22, 2000): private residence not used in interstate commerce; federal arson statute doesn’t apply

Bankers Trust Co. v. Texas & P.R. Co., 241 U.S. 295 (decided May 22, 1916): mere fact that defendant was corporation chartered by Congress did not mean that any lawsuit against it contains federal issue invoking federal court jurisdiction

United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, 529 U.S. 803 (decided May 22, 2000): striking down on First Amendment grounds cable providers’ prevention of “signal bleed” by either scrambling sexually explicit channels or restricting viewing to certain hours; less restrictive alternatives available (in the 1980s those of us without cable would watch those rhythmic wiggles on our TVs and try to guess what those people were doing) (though the Playboy Channel was concededly “sexually explicit” under the statute, Hefner & Co. were careful to avoid depicting actual sex; Teri Weigel, the April 1986 Playmate, went into porn and they never spoke to her again)

Zicarelli v. New Jersey State Comm’n of Investigation, 406 U.S. 472 (decided May 22, 1972): witness in organized crime investigation could not “take the Fifth” after commission had granted him “use and derivative use” immunity

United States Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (decided May 22, 1995): States cannot impose term limits on people they send to Congress

[SRG]

I had never heard of Teri Weigel. I checked her out on google images, and, what’s the word, classy? No. Classy is not the word.

[Dan Schiavetta]

She had the best body in porn. As one might expect from a former Playmate. She was great in “Friends and Lovers” with Joey Silvera and a good actress too (in days when porn had speaking scenes). The movie was also notable for Alicia Springs getting a very real-looking orgasm from Teri’s tongue.

(Mind you, that’s only what I heard . . . )

Unfortunately if you look her up on wikipedia you see an example of wikipedia’s worst feature, its insistence on showing recent photos of long-ago-famous people who are now old and decrepit, or in Weigel’s case, an all too common addiction to plastic surgery. I think she would be quite attractive now as an old lady, if she had decided to age gracefully.

[Mr. Bumble]

You seem to remember "what you heard" quite well.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I admit, my ears pricked up.

[Mr. Bumble]

Only your ears?

[Dan Schiavetta]

[my humor is too dry for some people]

[Frank Drackman]

"Best Body in Porn"??
lets see, DSL's from hell, big tits, tight bell, nice ass, legs longer than Hunter Biden's list of crack dealers,
guess some people get turned on by that....

Frank

[John F. Carr]

Wikipedia will show a picture that leaves the impression Wikipedia editors want to leave. Plenty of actresses from many decades ago are portrayed in their youth.

Wikipedia is a reminder that facts selected from reliable sources can still be as bad as a pack of lies.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I think that's only because they can't find a more recent picture.

[apedad]

Ugh . . . Instead of reading 'Teri Weigel,' I read 'Terri Schiavo' and now I'm all messed up.

[Mr. Bumble]

You certainly are. The two couldn't be farther apart.

[Frank Drackman]

I'd guess Terri Schiavo was "Farther apart" than the other one

[John F. Carr]

Terry Schiavo stars in "the woman who can't say no."

[Dan Schiavetta]

The callous exploitation of that family tragedy did a lot of damage to the “pro-life” movement. Perhaps the low point was Senator Frist (practicing outside his specialty) “diagnosing” cognitive awareness based on the few seconds of this unfortunate woman’s twitching face that he saw on TV.

[apedad]

Re: United States Term Limits v. Thornton

Facts of the case

On November 3, 1992, Arkansas voters adopted Amendment 73 to their State Constitution. The "Term Limitation Amendment," in addition to limiting terms of elected officials within the Arkansas state government, also provided that any person who served three or more terms as a member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US Representative from Arkansas. Similarly, the Amendment provided that any person who served two or more terms as a member of the United States Senate from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US Senator from Arkansas.

Question

Can states alter those qualifications for the U.S. Congress that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

Conclusion (5 - 4)

No. The Constitution prohibits States from adopting Congressional qualifications in addition to those enumerated in the Constitution. A state congressional term limits amendment is unconstitutional if it has the likely effect of handicapping a class of candidates and "has the sole purpose of creating additional qualifications indirectly." Furthermore, "...allowing individual States to craft their own congressional qualifications would erode the structure designed by the Framers to form a 'more perfect Union.'" (oyez)

Dissenting opinions

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a dissenting opinion joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and Justice Antonin Scalia, argued that the Constitution's authority relies on the consent of the people of individual states, not of the whole nation. Thomas posited that the Constitution is silent on the matter of the qualifications clause, and therefore cannot bar state action.[2]

“Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress. The Constitution is simply silent on this question. And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people. [3] (Ballotpedia)

I was surprised it was so close (5 - 4), as it seems to me this is a clear case for the Constitution.

[Dan Schiavetta]

At the time conservatives were abandoning their principles for the cause of term limits. Their support for term limits magically evaporated when Republicans surprisingly took over the House in the 1994 elections.

I've never had any sympathy for the idea. If you don't like the person in office, why don't you just drag your lazy ass to the polls and vote him out?

There's also the practical argument that if elected officials are always relatively new on the job, they will increasingly rely the accumulated expertise of unelected civil servants and lobbyists. This point was made very well by Bill Clinton in the 1992 debates (one of several gutsy things he did that year). It also played out in real-life-as-comedy style in the show "Yes, Minister", where Jim Hacker was regularly outmaneuvered by Sir Humphrey.

I remember one situation in 1995 where a newly-elected Republican was asked at a press conference about a bill he was sponsoring, and he referred the question to a lobbyist who answered it for him.

[Frank Drackman]

"I’ve never had any sympathy for the idea. If you don’t like the person in office, why don’t you just drag your lazy ass to the polls and vote him out?"
Because Ted Kennedy (as bad as Pooty-Poot-Putin is, he never left a young woman to asphyxiate (not drowned, there's a difference) like Senator Fat Face)
OK, Pooty-Poot would have one of his numerous lackeys do it.

And maybe with term limits you wouldn't have actual Dinosaurs like Diane-no-so-Fine Stein serving in her diapers.

Frank

[wolfefan]

Additionally, term limits just rearrange the politicians as opposed to getting anyone new in. Ohio has had term limits for the governor for a long, long time. The current governor is Mike Dewine. Is he a citizen legislator of some sort, or has he spent his career serving in just about every local, state, and federal public office it's possible to serve in? Take a look at the Ohio candidates page on http://www.politics1.com. Those folks just move from State Auditor to AG to SoS to Congress to Governor for their whole careers.

[Dan Schiavetta]

True! Jerry Brown in California is another example. Rick Scott is heading that way in Florida.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

There's much to be said for the argument that term limits strengthen the Deep State.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If by “Deep State” you mean “an immovable bureaucracy of civil servants that secretly plots against the people’s wishes”, then yes, because they are not accountable.

If by “Deep State” you mean “anybody in government who doesn’t do Trump’s bidding”, then still yes, because they have competence and expertise on their side, and newly elected reps don’t. They also are bound by professional standards of integrity, and politicians aren't.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I was talking about Congress, in which Trump never served, so you must have Trump on the brain.

("*I'm obsessed? *You're* the one with all the pictures of Trump!")

On the subject of Trump and the Deep State, I would separate two questions:

(a) Are there cases where the Deep State was more wrong than Trump (without calling Trump right in the absolute sense)? I believe there were such cases.

(b) Whether right or wrong, are Deep State people obliged to obey the President? Of course not, they can always resign.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You can’t blame me for associating the term with Trump and his supporters. Because Trump’s supporters genuflect before him without question, you also can’t blame me for extending this idea to his people in Congress.

a) I don’t think there have been any cases where Trump has been right and the “Deep State” wrong. I admit that it’s possible. It’s possible that Aaron Judge can be struck out by someone who doesn’t know how to pitch, doesn’t know what home plate is, doesn’t know what a strike is, can’t count to three, and wouldn’t recognize a baseball if you put it in his hand . . . but it’s possible.

b) No, the President can’t simply fire an Executive Branch employee who doesn’t do his bidding. Like Trump himself, you are confusing a President with a Dictator. He can't order them to do something corrupt, or order them to obstruct justice.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

OK, term limits would be a great idea because they would stop future Trumps.

/sarc

[SRG]

The dissenters' arguments appear to be, the people delegated authority to the Feds and to the states, so the state delegation takes preference. ???

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The dissent seems to ignore the specific requirement that members of the House (per Article I) and the Senate (per the 17th Amendment) will be elected by the people of the states.

Limiting the power of the people could only be done, IMHO, by another clause in the Constitution itself.

But if a state tries to add qualifications to those specified in the Constitution, that would limit the power of the people. It’s the same in principle as saying the people can only choose one candidate, or select between two candidates (hypothetically).

So the only limits on the power of the people to elect Congresscritters are those limits specifically put into the Constitution. (age, citizenship, etc.).

[not guilty]

Thornton calls into question whether criminal statutes which carry disqualification from future office (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 2071(b)) as a penalty can constitutionally be applied to Donald Trump if he is convicted and elected to another term as president.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Only ten years ago that would have been such a wild hypothetical that no law professor would put it on an exam, at least not while sober. But you have a point.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"That's a picture of Trump trampling the Constitution."

"That's Trump with a Hitler moustache."

"That's Trump eating babies."

"You certainly have a preoccupation with Trump."

"Well, you're the one with all the political cartoons."

https://netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/91q4/dirtypic.html