Today in Supreme Court History: November 3, 1845

11/3/1845: Chief Justice Edward Douglass White's birthday.

Chief Justice Edward Douglass White

Comments

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Happy Birthday Michael Dukakis too. And, Bobby. He’s my nephew, who will not read this. But, the Constitution is for us all.

A year ago, cert. was granted for Garland v. Cargill.

Result: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a rule that classifies a bump stock as a “machinegun” under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). Thomas wrote the 6-3 opinion with Sotomayor handling the dissent.

Three years ago, there was the oral argument for New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. Thomas also wrote the 6-3 opinion with Breyer writing the dissent.

Roberts did a fix-up job later.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and apparently Josh is still stuck with Mr. Peabody in 1845.

[Mr. Bumble]

My bad, this actually did occur in 1845. Shouldn't comment without
having at least one cup of coffee.

[Magister]

Yesterday's 1845 was corrected to 2010, which was unexpected given the persistent errors that are never corrected.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I voted for Dukakis in 1988. He forgave Lee Atwater for the racist campaign he designed for George H.W. Bush and visited Atwater when he was dying of cancer.

Some years later I was close up when Dukakis gave a presentation at one if those lawyer gatherings. He has big hands. He was a modest man but you couldn’t help noticing as he waved them around. Huge!

[Frank Drackman]

Did he forgive whoever ran AlGore's Cam-pain? Or AlGore Himself?, as he was the one who first brought the Prison Furloughs for Murderers up in a Debate before the New York Primary in April 1988, of course Do-Cock-Us won the nomination, not like releasing convicted Murderers with life without parole sentences would be an Ish-yew in the General Erection.

Frank "AlGore's Internets was used in the preparation of this reply"

[Frank Drackman]

From "Slate" not exactly a Repubiclown site

Gore did ask Dukakis, in a debate right before the 1988 New York primary, about “weekend passes for convicted criminals.” Here is how Sidney Blumenthal, now a Clinton White House aide but then a reporter for the Washington Post, wrote it up a few months later:

An uncomfortable Dukakis, after dispassionately reciting statistics, conceded that the Massachusetts furlough program for murderers sentenced to life imprisonment had been canceled, too late for a woman who was raped and murdered by one of the murderers in 1987.

[Estragon]

“Repubiclown site”

I think that would be the Black Insurrectionist, presumably from where you’ve been mainlining all the Russian disinformation into these threads the last few weeks. Are you an unwitting dupe or actually Alex Bruesewitz?

[Mr. Bumble]

The "extra hour" of sleep did little to improve the content and quality of your comments.

[Estragon]

“content and quality”

Empty calorie commenter has notes! It’s like a free ride when all you need is a knife

You might need another cup of coffee.

[Mr. Bumble]

Muted!
Kidding, I don't mute anyone, even assholes like you.

[Estragon]

Of course not— trolls never mute anyone because they’re interested in poo flinging and engagement first and foremost.

On the other hand, I do indeed mute various huckleberries— but not you! I’m not sure even you would dispute that your contributions there tend to be on the shorter and… ahem… less technical side.

However once in a while, you do try to offer something substantive and THAT is comedic gold. It’s like sideshow Bob stepping on a rake over and over for eternity. Bless your heart! Never change!

[Bob from Ohio]

"mainlining all the Russian disinformation"

Every fact libs do not like is "disinformation" and especially the scary "Russian disinformation".

Gore did bring up the furlough fiasco first, Atwater just ran with it.

[Estragon]

“Every fact”

Hey Bob, I’ve got the ABC whistleblower holding on line 1 for you.

[Magister]

Gore asked about the furlough program; it was the Bush campaign that added the racism.

[Dan Schiavetta]

That is correct.

Atwater: "We're going to make that black rapist (Willie Horton) Dukakis's running mate!" He succeeded, due to a compliant press. The ad ran only once but it was repeated endlessly on TV news on the excuse that "the ad is the story".

[Mr. Bumble]

Got a cite for that?
Oh wait you hide behind "mute".

[Noscitur a sociis]

With a bit of googling, you can easily find the actual quote, "By the time we're finished, they're going to wonder whether Willie Horton is Dukakis's running mate." You will of course note that the racist language exists purely in captcrisis’s mind.

[Mr. Bumble]

The quote I found was:
"Referring to Dukakis, Atwater declared that he would "strip the bark off the little bastard" and "make Willie Horton his running mate".[2] "
This was from his Wiki page and the footnote is to his NYT obit.

[Mr. Bumble]

The Bush campaign did not created the original ad with the mug shot.
"The 30-second ad was financed by the National Security PAC, not Bush’s campaign. "
https://www.history.com/news/george-bush-willie-horton-racist-ad

[Magister]

Bumble's naive belief that there can be no coordination between a campaign and PACs running negative advertising against its opponent is like a puppy stepping on its own floppy ears.

From opensecrets.org:

Besides the influential impact they may have had on voters, the Willie Horton ads also demonstrate how independent expenditures may give the appearance of illegality. The similarities between the NSPAC ad and Bush's own TV spots, as well as a connection between a NSPAC employee and a Bush communications expert, spawned allegations that there was coordination between the Bush campaign and NSPAC. While the allegations were never proven, the questions that arose tainted the presidential election.

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, I guess you could say the Washington Post is a source of Roosh-un Miss-Information, since that's where it came from

Here is how Sidney Blumenthal, now a Clinton White House aide but then a reporter for the Washington Post, wrote it up a few months later:

"An uncomfortable Dukakis, after dispassionately reciting statistics, conceded that the Massachusetts furlough program for murderers sentenced to life imprisonment had been canceled. The issue did not take for Gore, but the exchange attracted the interest of Jim Pinkerton, the research director for the then flailing Bush campaign. “That’s the first time I paid attention,” said Pinkerton. “I thought to myself, ‘This is incredible’ …It totally fell into our lap.”

[Estragon]

Bruesewitz! It’s you! What were you thinking with that comic?!?

[John F. Carr]

Mike Dukakis is 91 years old.

Also, Mike Dukakis Is No Longer Accepting Turkey Carcasses.

[Dan Schiavetta]

He based his campaign on being “dull and boring”. I’m not sure if that fits the narrative or goes against it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Turkey carcasses. How seasonal. Maybe Brett, hobie or C-XY among others will share recipes.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The thing is, plenty of voters would have been just as outraged at the Horton situation if Horton had been a White guy. It’s not as if average White voters would feel in solidarity with a White criminal who committed a brutal crime while on furlough for a sentence he was serving for another awful crime.

Yet apparently Atwater took a look and said, “here’s a Black criminal to scare the Whites with!” There are *some* Whites who want criminals punished regardless of race, but maybe Atwater wasn’t one of these Whites? Atwater should have apologized for feeding the assumption that getting tough with the most brutal group of criminals is the same as racism.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (decided November 3, 1884): Native American born on reservation is not a citizen and therefore cannot vote even though he moved off reservation, renounced his tribal affiliation, and claimed birthright citizenship under Fourteenth Amendment (holding was abrogated by Indian Citizenship Act of 1924)

Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12 (decided November 3, 2003): Ohio court held that aggravated murder defendant’s omission from indictment as a “principal offender” was harmless error; the Court holds that this was not “contrary to clearly established federal law” and therefore no right to seek habeas

Rose v. Arkansas State Police, 479 U.S. 1 (decided November 3, 1986): strikes down on Supremacy Clause grounds Arkansas workers’ compensation statute allowing benefits payable to policeman’s widow under federal Public Safety Officers’ Death Benefits Act to be subtracted from workers’ compensation benefits due her

[Brett Bellmore]

"even though he moved off reservation, renounced his tribal affiliation, and claimed birthright citizenship under Fourteenth Amendment"

It's not like the 14th amendment had some explicit text applying to his situation... Oh, wait, it did. "excluding Indians not taxed."

The Indian reservations were foreign territory under the Constitution, the tribes separate sovereigns, so birthright citizenship didn't apply there. If you were born on a reservation, you weren't born "in the United States".

I don't think it was so much "abrogated" by the citizenship act, as rendered moot.

[Dan Schiavetta]

When I started the series I noticed confused terminology as to subsequent developments. Abrogated? Overruled? Superseded? Mooted?

I decided to use “abrogated” when a higher authority (i.e., Congress) rendered a Court decision no longer applicable. “Mooted” when facts changed. Reasonable minds can differ of course.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, but the facts were changed: All the Indians became citizens, so the 'Indians not taxed' category became an empty set.

[Davy C]

"excluding Indians not taxed" applies to the apportionment of representatives, not citizenship. It's relevant as to the intent of the amendment, but it does not explicitly apply to the situation. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is the text which better applies here.

[Frank Drackman]

I have Reservations about your interpretation

[Mr. Bumble]

"“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof”..."
And, just what does that phrase mean.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The Fourteenth Amendment says,

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

What part of this do you think explicitly applies to this situation?

Between this and your Fourth Amendment takes the other day, you’re on a textualism hot streak!

[Brett Bellmore]

WHY don't 'Indians not taxed' count towards apportionment? Because they're not residents of any state, hence not of the United States, because the reservations were foreign territory.

That's also why their children didn't qualify for birthright citizenship if born on the reservation: They weren't born on US territory, any more that someone born in Canada was.

[ducksalad]

It wasn’t so much foreign territory as unincorporated territory. Distinction was still made in modern times; born in the Virgin Islands, US Citizen; born in American Samoa, only a US national.

Reservations were included in official US maps and stats, and if Canada or Mexico had entered and seized control of a reservation it would definitely have been considered an invasion of US territory.

BTW, a district judge in 2019 ruled that American Samoans are entitled to citizenship. Would be interesting if applied consistently, since there are probably still hundreds of thousands of Filipinos alive who were born while it was unincorporated US territory.

[bernard11]

WHY don’t ‘Indians not taxed’ count towards apportionment? Because they’re not residents of any state, hence not of the United States, because the reservations were foreign territory.

Is there historical evidence that this is true? You seem to be good at making up this kind of reason, especially when it can be used to justify policies you like.

In any case, why couldn't this just have been the outcome of arguments over apportionment, or Indians, or something else?

As Falstaff didn't quite say, "Reasons are as plenty as blackberries."

[Noscitur a sociis]

You’re now drawing inferences and conclusions from unrelated parts of the text. That argument might have some merit (the majority in this case certainly found it persuasive!). But it’s not a question that’s unambiguously resolved by the text itself.

[Mr. Bumble]

Off topic but it's a slow day:
RIP P'Nut and Fred.

[zvwmzvwmzvwm]

Did his clerks have a party at the office? Was there cake? How many candles? Exactly what happened at the supreme court? Did his mother give birth at the supreme court? How is this important in the practice of constitutional law? Do you get taxable income to report from providing this service? Can we see your advertising monetization reporting records?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

” You will of course note that the racist language exists purely in captcrisis’s mind.”

Again, when people say “of course” online, be on guard.

I also did a “bit of googling” and it is not “purely” in his mind. For instance, the name “Willie” was chosen for racially tinged reasons.

https://www.history.com/news/george-bush-willie-horton-racist-ad