Today in Supreme Court History: December 5, 1933

12/5/1933: The 21st Amendment is ratified.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Lopez v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 47 (decided December 5, 2006): felony under state law which is only a misdemeanor under federal law is not “a felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act” (18 U.S.C. §924(c)(2)) (here, abetting possession of cocaine) and therefore deportation is only discretionary

Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124 (decided December 5, 1995): order remanding after removal is not appealable (once it’s out of federal court, it’s gone) (wrinkle here was that remand was to bankruptcy court, not state court, but bankruptcy court had no choice but to remand further to state court)

Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment, 493 U.S. 120 (decided December 5, 1989): Rule 11 sanctions for a frivolous pleading are to be awarded against the attorney who signed it, not his law firm (Scalia cites text of Rule; in dissent Marshall emphasizes trial judge’s right to control his courtroom, and that trial judge penalized both attorney and firm) (if you want to see an extreme example of Rule 11 “satellite litigation” during those mean years, check out Cooter & Gell v. Hartmax, 1990) (in 1996 or so my adversary once threatened me with a Rule 11 motion for proposing to ask the judge for permission to move for summary judgment)

[SRG2]

The Greatest Justice Who Ever Lived or Will Ever Live dissented in Lopez on the implicit grounds that the appellant was a scumbag.

The correct decision and reasoning is simple - as long as the Court continues to accept dual sovereignty - letting both Fed and state prosecutions for the same acts - the Feds and courts must accept that Fed can't "import" state sovereignty when convenient.

[Noscitur a sociis]

There are lots of ways federal law can cross reference convictions in other jurisdictions. Sometimes (e.g. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) or § 924(e)(2)(ii)). Sometimes (e.g. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(2)(A)), it looks to how federal law would have treated the underlying conduct instead. Figuring it out in the case of any particular statute is a matter of textual interpretation, not political philosophy (or whatever your last sentence is supposed to mean).

[SRG2]

Oh, I understand how this works in practice. And I am sorry you don't understand the last sentence.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I'm reminded of the person who said "John Bingham" a lot; it was a good drinking game. John Bingham. DRINK!!!!

Also in NYC legal news: in recent days both jaywalking (locally) and adultery (statewide) is no longer a crime. If you jaywalk on the way to your paramour, do watch out for traffic, especially if you are tipsy.

https://verdict.justia.com/2024/12/05/the-end-of-the-affair-adultery-in-modern-law

[Frank Drackman]

I'll drink to that! but yet the Prohibitionists are still among us, like the Po'. Pete Hedgesex drinks! he gets drunk! He has Sex! with Women!!!!
In other words, he's like most of the Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen who actually served in combat, (and the men are even worse) and not as bad as most of the Senators who get to rule on his application, and I'll take a hungover Pete Hedgesex over those fat slobs Austin and Milley or that light in the combat boots Pete Booty-Judge and Lindsay Buckingham-Graham-Nicks any day.

[Malika the Maiz]

In August 2017, while still married to Samantha, Hegseth had his daughter Gwen[101][102] with Fox executive producer Jennifer Rauchet.[25] In September 2017, Samantha filed for divorce, which took ten months to finalize.[102][103] Hegseth and Rauchet, who has three young children from her first marriage,[104] married on August 16, 2019.[105]
In 2018, during Hegseth's divorce proceedings from his second wife, his mother Penelope Hegseth sent him an email criticizing his treatment of women. The email stated: "You are an abuser of women – that is the ugly truth and I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around, and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth ... “

What a piece of crap.

[SRG2]

Yes, but all the Trump supporters here approve of his nomination, as they did of Gaetz's, because being an abuser of women is a sign of manliness, and being qualified for the position is a lefty liberal concept etc etc

[Malika the Maiz]

Yep. Conservative populism!

[Dan Schiavetta]

"You can't be one kind of man and another kind of President!"

That was Lynn Martin, delivering the keynote speech at the 1992 Republican Convention (insinuating about Bill Clinton's personal life).

[Frank Drackman]

and she was wrong, Slick Willy did a pretty good job, JFK probably would have too. It was that Born Again Jimmuh Cartuh, reformed Alcoholic "W" and conscientious LBJ who's work we're still trying to un-fuck 60 years later

[Bob from Ohio]

"abuser of women"

Sleeping around is morally bad but does not make one an "abuser of women".

Democrats in New York state just said adultery was not bad any more so why are you upset?

[SRG2]

I'm not upset. I find it interesting that people like you are pathologically hypocritical on such matters.

Hegseth paid off a woman who accused him of sexual assault. That's not just adultery.

[Frank Drackman]

A woman took money for having sex with him? there's a word for that.

[Malika the Maiz]

She likely didn’t mean abuse in a legal sense, and in a non-legal sense the behavior need not be violent: treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So long as it's drummed into us that we have to choose the lesser evil, we'll choose evil. Unless you think one of the two designated sides is pure, which only ultra-partisans of that side will believe.

[Malika the Maiz]

Oh, hogwash. There are plenty of potential nominees Trump could choose who didn’t knock up their mistresses while married with children.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The next guy will probably be a man who lives alone with only his chickens to keep him company, if you know what I mean.

[Malika the Maiz]

lol, the only alternative to someone who knocked up his mistresses while married with children is that! I feel sorry for the moral paucity of your world.

[ducksalad]

Malika, if one of the job requirements is absolute loyalty to Trump, specifically demonstrated by a willingness to parrot what he says even when it means shamelessly contradicting yourself and denying obvious facts, then the pool is necessarily limited to people with no sense of decency or honor.

Such people are likely to not be reliable on their marriage vows. It could actually be a little difficult to find someone who checks off both boxes: totally dishonest and willing to say anything, absolutely clean on personal and family matters.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Maybe this newfound reverence for the sanctity of marriage can inspire progressives to work on bipartisan legislation to recriminalize adultery.

But maybe it's too late...

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/05/today-in-supreme-court-history-december-5-1933-6/?comments=true#comment-10823934

Politicians whose main entertainment (aside from billing expensive vacations to the taxpayer) is having sex with other people's spouses are not going to be enthusiastic about punishing this crime.

Even if progressives support such legislation the right-wing adulterers will block it.

[SRG2]

Bullshit. It's like saying, all negative utilities are equal.

[SMP0328]

12/5/1933: The 21st Amendment is ratified.

Happy Repeal Day! While the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment, the latter continues to show the type of insanity you get when Leftist Karens ally with Evangelical Bible-thumpers.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Garrison Keillor:

"It is invigorating to realize you've been dead wrong about something. That's why we read history. It's an antidote to smug self-righteousness, which makes us insufferable. You learn about this from books. I can't think of any movie or song that changed my mind about anything, but books of history certainly have.

You sit down and read about the temperance movement of the 19th century, which brought about Prohibition, which you always thought was a foolish attempt by blue-nosed puritans to repress bonhomie, which was the view of the satirists of the Twenties, but there is another point of view: The temperance cause was a protest movement by women who, having been shut out of higher education and relegated to menial jobs, were economically dependent on men and therefore terribly vulnerable to a man's alcoholism. The temperance crusader Carrie Nation, famous for busting up saloons with a hatchet, was the wife of a raging alcoholic who had destroyed her life. The Women's Christian Temperance Union, which you had thought of as a joke, has certain heroic dimensions and helped pave the way for women's suffrage."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It's hard to know whether to support a policy if the supporters and opponents aren't divided along traditional lines. If the sides are drawn up traditionally, you'll know which side the good guys are on and take that side. But if the lines are drawn up in a confused way, with good guys and bad guys all mixed up higgledy-piggledy, how to know what's right? Maybe examine the policy on its own merits? But that would take too much work.

[not guilty]

People are funny when it comes to whether alcohol should be legal. In my state whether liquor stores should be permitted is subject to referendum in each county. I recall a member of the state legislature saying that in every election to legalize booze, the bootleggers provide the funding in opposition, while the Baptists provide the preaching.

Prohibition under the Volstead Act had a great deal to do with organized crime in America becoming powerful.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"Progressives" and "conservatives" can, in different eras, hold the same positions, though usually for different reasons.

The truth is, most people don't really think about the issues. They just pick sides based on who they'd rather hang out with.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

My point exactly.

[Noscitur a sociis]

which makes us insufferable.

Sounds like an area he’d be well-qualified to address.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

As Dan's quotation suggests, the Prohibition Amendment was the result of a coalition that was addressing serious problems in a problematic way.

One point to remember is that the amendment addresses "intoxicating liquors" and it was not clear exactly what that meant. Some people were surprised the prohibitory laws were as broad as they were. Overall, using a prohibition amendment was a questionable means to address temperance.

The 21A left prohibition as an option. Future Supreme Court cases determined it left open other constitutional limits. For instance, a sexist law regulating alcohol could still be unconstitutional.

[Krayt]

Possibly "intoxocating liquors" were alcohol intended to be drunk for its effect, as opposed to medicinal or blood of Jesus.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It also might have meant something particularly strong, which helped the development of something like "near beer."

It did not necessarily mean anything fermented, including various things people drank that did not seem problematic to many people.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

[delete]

[JoeFromtheBronx]

[delete]