Today in Supreme Court History: July 8, 1941

7/8/1941: Justice James Byrnes takes oath.

Justice James Byrnes

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Secretary of the Navy v. Avrech, 418 U.S. 676 (decided July 8, 1974): soldier busted down to private for publishing a “disloyal” statement; Court refuses to hear case because service personnel do not enjoy full First Amendment rights (citing Parker v. Levy, 1974)

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. — (decided July 8, 2020): “ministerial exception” to First Amendment (as to teachers of religion) precludes age discrimination and disability discrimination lawsuits (I don’t know of any Catholic doctrine that says old people or disabled people can’t teach religion — in fact the Church has long been happy to be guided by decrepit and disabled Popes)

Little Sisters of the Poor SS. Peter & Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. — (decided July 8, 2020): upholding federal exemptions allowing religious institutions to opt out of Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive insurance coverage requirement even though not promulgated in accordance with Administrative Procedure Act

Pennsylvania v. Trump, 591 U.S. — (decided July 8, 2020): companion case to Little Sisters v. Pennsylvania

Wardlow v. Texas, 591 U.S. — (decided July 8, 2020): denying stay of execution and rejecting psychiatrists’ opinion that youth of defendant prevented his full knowledge of crime; Wardlow (who at age 18 had killed someone during a burglary) was executed by lethal injection 28 minutes after decision came down

Sutherland v. Illinois, 418 U.S. 907 (decided July 8, 1974): refusing to review judgment that flag with peace symbol displayed on private property was protected by First Amendment; issue already decided in favor of flag bearer via Spence v. Washington, 1974

Farrell v. Iowa, 418 U.S. 907 (decided July 8, 1974): denying certiorari in case involving flag desecration as part of political speech (citing Spence)

Cahn v. Long Island Vietnam Moratorium Committee, 418 U.S. 906 (decided July 8, 1974): affirming decision vacating conviction for placing the “Peace Symbol” upon the Flag (citing Spence)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Wardlow (who at age 18 had killed someone during a burglary”

Specifically:

"[Wardlow] and his girlfriend, Tonya Fulfer, set out to steal Carl Cole's Chevy Silverado....

"...Wardlow stood on Cole's front porch at dawn. Wardlow asked to borrow a phone. Cole handed one through the door. As Wardlow pretended to make a call, Cole tried to shut the door. Wardlow brought out the .45 he'd stolen from his mother hours before. To Wardlow's surprise, the 82-year-old Cole charged him, grabbed his arm, and began to push the much-larger Wardlow backwards off the porch. As Cole's fingers grabbed for control of the gun Wardlow shot. Cole fell dead. Wardlow and Fulfer were arrested two days later, having made it as far as South Dakota."

https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2020-06-26/a-dangerous-man/

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks
Doesn’t sound intentional

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I think it’s what they call a “robbery gone wrong.” And the shooter sounds like he had what they used to call “an abandoned and malignant heart.”

[Jerry B.]

He brought a firearm to a robbery. Sounds pretty intentional to me. Not like it was self-defense or anything.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It takes a leap of logic to assume that carrying a loaded gun necessarily means you intend to kill someone. Especially when your objective is not murder but burglary. It wasn’t even “open carry”.

[Michael P]

It takes leftist logic to decide that pulling out a firearm to further a crime does not legally imply intent to use deadly force.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

He pulled the gun out before his victim charged. That was not self-defense, it was intentional and his pro-active decision to further his crime.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Burglary is a lot more effective with a loaded gun. If he had been able to shoot out a window Mr. Cole would have backed away quickly and let them take off in his Chrysler.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

You would prefer to believe an armed robber plans to use his gun to break windows rather than threaten people? Why not bring a hammer instead and avoid the armed robbery charge?

[Michael P]

Shooting a window is only very effective in two situations: when one has another blunt item to clear the shattered glass, or one is trying to shoot someone (or something) through the window.

captcrisis's suggested use involves the threat of the latter, which brings us back to your earlier point.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The idea is to scare people.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Yes. Scare with the threat of death. Not scare with the threat of having to replace broken glass.

[Frank Drackman]

Why not use a fake gun then?? Seriously, you're demoted "Captain"!!!!!!!! from now on you're "Private Crisis"

[Mr. Bumble]

Doesn’t sound intentional

You have a hearing problem.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

He stole the gun, brought it with him, pulled it out. All those steps were individually intentional, and the first two were planned.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I meant it doesn’t sound like intentional homicide.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

It was intentional armed robbery, which includes the foreseeable consequence of threatening death and following through with killing.

He pulled his gun out before being charged; that was not self-defense, it was intentional.

I’m willing to cut a mugger some slack if a 10 year old kid victim dies of a heart attack, that is not really foreseeable. But if he mugs an old lady with a walker who dies of a heart attack, that is foreseeable. (ETA to mean a "non-violent" mugger, one who doesn't beat up his victim, just says "give me your money" or some other hypothetical.)

Same with any armed robber: death is foreseeable, otherwise why bring the gun? Self-defense is not really self-defense when the defender is an armed robber.

Whether he planned to shoot his victim hours before or only moments before, or whether he only planned to scare the victim or to shoot him, I don’t care. He planned to use the gun in an armed robbery, death was a foreseeable consequence, and the distinctions are like quibbling over angels on the head of a pin.

Or a different analogy, a bank robber who uses his finger in a pocket to intimidate the teller, or even just writes in his note that he has a gun. I don’t care whether he has a gun, it’s a water pistol, it’s real but unloaded, or it’s loaded but he doesn’t have his hand on it. He wants people to think they are in danger of dying, and that is all that matters; the consequences should be the same, either shot by a guard or the teller or a bystander, or sent to prison.

[Michael P]

What's the (criminal) legal test for intent in a situation like that? It falls within the model jury instructions for second degree murder in at least some jurisdictions: https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/566 (Texas seems to have theirs behind a paywall.)

Pulling a gun during a robbery is at least "recklessly with extreme disregard for human life".

Note that the question submitted to the Court was not whether the defendant committed capital murder based on the actions, but whether he had the requisite mens rea because of his age.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Even if intentional, doesn’t sound premeditated, certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems odd to put a teenager "to sleep" on these facts. And to poke with the needle 28 minutes after his appeals were exhausted.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I don't know about the other commenters, but none of mine have anything to do with the death penalty, which I consider despicable except in self-defense by victims.

As for not intentional, that's a joke. He intentionally stole the gun, intentionally brought it with him, and intentionally pulled it out in furtherance of his crime before he needed it for self-defense, which doesn't even make sense during a crime.

[SRG]

[Mr. Bumble]

So how long would be long enough to satisfy you?

[Michael P]

Murder doesn't have to be premeditated.

Also, Wardlow wasn't a teenager when he was executed. At age 18, he murdered Carl Cole in 1993, and was executed in 2020. You can do the simple arithmetic to figure his age then.

[Frank Drackman]

Simple arithmetic indeed, 27 years in prison, average Human exhales 0.2L CO2/minute, 12 L/Hour, 288L/day, 105,120L/year, or over 2.8 million Liters of CO2 during his entire incarceration… Whoo!!! makes me hot just thinking about it. and with over 2,300 peoples currently on Death Row, some 241 MILLION Liters of extra CO2/year, and that’s not including the most horrible Criminals, like Malpractice Attorney’s (Rim-Shot) Seriously, you want to reduce CO2?? some heads will have to roll (or veins)

Frank

[David Nieporent]

Even if intentional, doesn’t sound premeditated, certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems odd to put a teenager “to sleep” on these facts. And to poke with the needle 28 minutes after his appeals were exhausted.

To be clear, they did not "put a teenager 'to sleep.'" They put a 45-year old man to sleep.

[Frank Drackman]

and it wasn't really "to Sleep" unless you mean the "Big Sleep" (still can't figure out that movie)

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Or here's yet another way to put it. Every action has consequences. Driving has the risk of drunks or inattentive drivers running red lights, and is one of the reasons we wear seat belts. We don't rely on insurance or doctors or criminal charges, we wear seat belts. We put up with the expense when buying cars, with the delay in buckling up when getting in, the discomfort while driving, and the delay when getting out.

A robber who brings a gun knows the consequences. It can protect him from being shot, it can increase the odds of victim compliance, it can increase the odds of dying from a victim's self-defense, and it can result in more serious charges if caught by the police.

He chose all those when he chose to bring the gun along with him. Just as a seat belt can't protect against drunk drivers without also adding discomfort, so the armed robber can't choose to only get the benefits with none of the drawbacks.

[Frank Drackman]

Too bad it did to the Jury. But of course you were there for the trial, so you know better.

[David Nieporent]

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. — (decided July 8, 2020): “ministerial exception” to First Amendment (as to teachers of religion) precludes age discrimination and disability discrimination lawsuits (I don’t know of any Catholic doctrine that says old people or disabled people can’t teach religion — in fact the Church has long been happy to be guided by decrepit and disabled Popes)

Of course, the issue wasn't whether an old person could teach religion, but whether the state could tell the Church who should be teaching religion in the first place.

[Magister]

The ever-increasing "ministerial exception" which precludes claims against religious employers fits right in with other decisions allowing religion as an excuse for ignoring relevant laws. In my view, the best compromise would be to require religious employers to tell prospective employees up front if they will be under the ministerial exception - hired as a ministerial janitor or a secular janitor - and what the consequences of the former would be.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Good comment!

[Frank Drackman]

Shortest serving Supreme, his Seat would eventually be held by William Brennan,
and now the "Rest of the Story" Byrnes went on to Head the Office of Economic Stabilization then, the Office of War Mobilization, Secretary of State for Truman, then 1 term as Governor of South Carolina. One of the original "Democrats for (Insert Republican Candidate here) supported Ike in 52, Milhouse in 60, one of the few "Democrats for Goldwater" in 1964(Good thing Goldwater lost, he'd have gotten us into a land war in Asia) Only break was supporting DemoKKKrat Harry Byrd (the kinder/gentler of the Byrd Brothers) in 1956
What a guy!!!!!!!
Good Day!!!!

Frank

[SRG]

You'd think that people like Morrissey-Bera would be smart enough to realise that working for a religious organisation meant giving up some legal rights.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Still seems odd to be fired for being too old when the people you report to are even older. The median age of priests is now 66, of nuns is 70, and every day you pass a photo of a Pope in his 80s.

[F.D. Wolf]

I know you fully realize that just because a plaintiff claims she was fired because of her age (or other discriminatory reason), it does not necessarily mean that she, in fact, was.

The problem with making a religious organization defend such a claim is that it would have to offer an alternative justification for the firing at a trial, and this will likely draw a court into the question of evaluating church doctrine. "Was she really not sufficiently imparting church teaching?" or the like. (I'll also note, as an aside, that neither of the plaintiffs were technically "fired", but, rather, did not have their contracts renewed.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don’t think that would be an allowable issue. In cases involving suits against parishes for sexual abuse by their priests, courts have dismissed allegations of negligent training, because how the Church prepares its priests for service is protected by the Free Exercise Clause.

[Frank Drackman]

Kinder/Gentler Frank here,
how about a Compromise on the Death Penalty??? No more official "Death" Penalties, but every murderer gets Christopher Scarver (or a reasonable facsimile) as a Cellmate (can't have the Solitary Confinement!!!!)
Because as bad as Jeffy Dahmer was, he got to have his mind expanded (and beaten out of his skull) instead of just sitting on Death Row for 50 years...

Frank

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Isn't felony murder only applicable to accomplices? This was the robber himself.

[Michael P]

Texas's definition of murder (https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm) has a "felony murder" clause, but not of the usual sense where an accomplice kills someone; it only elevates manslaughter to murder if the killing happens in sufficient relation to another felony. https://versustexas.com/felony-murder-in-texas/ says:

A classic example would be a getaway driver in a robbery who, while fleeing the scene, runs over and kills a pedestrian.

That would certainly cover the case here, but I think the fact pattern also supports conviction under the other two prongs of Texas's murder statute.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

No it isn't. The risk of threatening with a gun depends on what the victim perceives.

Threaten somebody, and there are consequences.

He presumably threatened with a gun because he didn't think his fists or a baseball bat or a knife would be sufficient.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

C-o-n-s-e-q-u-e-n-c-e-s.

Look it up. Understand the gestalt of an analogy, not its literal meaning.