2020 Term Year Supreme Court Slip Review (c) Copyright Brett Paufler # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # How does one indicate a lack of respect in a respectful manner? I do not believe the intent of The Rule of Law is Justice, Fairness, Morality, Ethics, or anything remotely close. I have no respect for it. I find it hard to believe that anyone close to The Law has much respect for it, either. I'm slowly (or quite rapidly) failing to care one iota what any judge anywhere has to say about pretty much anything. Eh, whatever. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. I have no legal training. Nothing as follows has much to do with the law, as it's not a subject I care that much about. It's opinion. It's reaction. It's a record of my ever growing dissatisfaction with what laughably passes as The Rule of Law. DISCLAIMER: Go Away! DISCLAIMER: Leave Me Alone! DISCLAIMER: This is not about law. DISCLAIMER: What follows should be taken about as seriously as graffiti on the subway wall... so, not at all if one cares about, well, whatever it is that The Supreme Court spends its time writing about. DISCLAIMER: This is what I want to write about. DISCLAIMER: No one much cares about my opinion... and for the most (say, except for some sort of ethnographic reason), neither should you. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # All statements should be independently verified and assumed to be wrong. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # As follows (in the very next section) are the notes I took whilst reading, thinking about, and/or reacting to The Supreme Court Slips for The 2020 Term Year. {Edit Time Comment} [Edit or Redaction] ----- = inline deletion (I don't think there are any of these) NOTE: {Edit Time Comments} are spread throughout liberally and in the end amount to comments on comments, which are even less informed than the original comments, which were vague, incomplete, and/or inaccurate enough (in the first place) that I felt the need to comment and expand upon them (in the second place). Further Note: Simple Edits (Punctuation & Spelling) are made inline with no further notation. I say this only because non-writers might be surprise to learn how easily such changes can alter the original meaning of a passage, shifting a sentence towards This, when (if adhering to the original intent is the actual desire) it should have been shifted towards That. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 2020 - Term Year START: 2021-04-25 I am not as far behind in The Slips, as I thought I was. These Running Notes will serve as My Raw Data and perhaps the majority of My Write-Up. I do not know what sort of Consistent Data I will collect. I'm thinking DOCKET#: & JUSTICE:. But it is too early to tell. I'm OK with a Data Focus that Swerves. I will, perhaps, Remove Moral Analysis to The UN-TAGGED: Flow. Gads. Has my syntax gotten out of hand? Having skimmed the first Slip, I know what's important to me: No Liability for Third Party Actions w/o Explicit Direction or Control. But what to record? Of course, having stated the above, I now know what to record. 19-1108: No Liability for Third Party Actions w/o Explicit Direction or Control {NOTE (and/or DISCLAIMER): The above reflects MY THOUGHTS. I have as much respect for The Justices' Thoughts as they have for mine, which is ABSOLUTELY NONE. At this point, I have no idea what the actual slip was about, as my notes are in no way congruent with the slips: i.e. what is important to me has almost nothing to do with what is important to The Court.} This would be My Generalized Directive: The Rule under which I would decide The Issue at Hand, keeping in mind that I don't actually know nor care about the Actual Case. So, My Issue at Hand may be (and probably is) highly tangential to The Case at Hand. It's my reaction to The Sensational Headline and nothing else. I'm not reviewing law. I'm using The Slip (and not necessary even The Case) as a Sounding Board to wax on about Morality & Ethics. TEXT_FILE: NO_HTML { is HTML encoding for italics. But such syntax is unlikely to occur further along on account of "TEXT_FILE: NO_HTML".} {{Note, in the above, I originally wrote "likely" instead of "unlikely", which I point out merely to highlight how easy it is (for me, at least) to say the exact opposite of what is intended.}} Thus, this file has little to do with Slips, Justices, or Law. It's a Free Form Moral Diatribe. {How many DISCLAIMERS do you need? No. Sorry. That is the wrong question. How many DISCLAIMERS do I need? I don't know? How many disclaimers does it take?} {I will note that there is, perhaps, a direct correlation between the number of DISCLAIMERS and the perceived Freedom of Expression. Having no faith in The Law, I have no faith in the underlying Propaganda. Freedom of Speech? Freedom of Religion? Freedom of This? Freedom of That? Only so far as it is convenient, would be my summation of the actual state of affairs.} And seriously, if the need for TEXT_FILE: NO_HTML is not clear from The Overall Context of My Work... Why do it as an IF? DISCLAIMER: COMPLETE DISCLAIMER: I'm no Lawyer. DISCLAIMER: Not Legal Analysis DISCLAIMER: Not Legal Anything. RUN MACRO(DISCLAIMERS=ALL) I am a Syntax Geek. Um, see how little some of this has to do with The Slips or anything else The Supreme Court is up to? Ha. I already blew it on The NO_HTML. Still, that's the goal. As it stands, I see hanging this off of a page wherein the actual Moral Principles (and possibly nothing else) are used as prompts. On the First Line of The Slip, I find my mind taking note, taking a side. BARRET: We have a new Justice. 19-1261: Dogs only get One Bite (Their First & Final) and that's as far as Qualified Immunity should go. 20A87: Life is not a Sentence. A Person has The Right to Die. {Once again, there is, perhaps, little overlap between The Slip and what I have to say.} 19-71: It's not Qualified Immunity. But Government Employees should be shielded against Prosecution & Lawsuits for Just Doing Their Jobs. I think it is Self-evident that Just Doing Their Jobs does not entail The Breaking of Any Law. 2021-04-29 19-309: Who should be a Lawyer? Judge? And All The Rest? I'm not going to do them in order. I'll do them by month... or at least, the rest of the month that way... and rather probably, in numerical sort order {from month-to-month}, thereafter. 18-540: Healthcare Regulations. Generally I'm Pro Free Market w/ Moral Hazard and Nobles Oblige intact. But should Healthcare be treated differently? In other words, what does Nobles Oblige mean in regards to Healthcare? 19-108: If it can be proved... 19-1302: I shall be Philosophically against The Death Penalty. But it's not a strong view. It seems more like Best Practices. 29-366: Not this hole. Not that hole. That's all I'm saying. Paul Bunyan is better than Pecos Bill; and that's a fact. 65: Unlike a Justice, I can opt out of An Opinion; and often do. I know there are problems; cry me a river. 19-963: Hard Pass. 19-357: I'm not that big of a fan of Private Property. At what point (of Socialism, for lack of a better word) is Bankruptcy a meaningless concept? {Actually, and here I have what I consider to be an interesting idea. How would society change if there was no such thing as debt. A person could buy or sell, but nothing else? Of course, debt immediately gets shifted into (or can be interpreted as) a complex if/then buy/sell conditional chain. So, clearly, I mean the absence of such chains. And thus, I mean the absence of conditional ownership.} 2021-04-30 19-292: One need not succeed at an action for it to be criminal. And this is their life's work? 19-368: I see no need to prop up a giant. Let ties go to the little guy. In fact, I'd probably shift the line back further than that... say, proportionally. {Meaning, rather than an aberration, one would expect David to triumph against Goliath.} On the last, I read the first page of a thirty-six page Opinion. I care not for the case. Chop the big guys off at the knees... or the head. It makes no difference to me. 19-438: "Give U.S. your poor, your weary," etcetera. This country was built on immigration. Open The Borders! Completely! Or don't. What do I care? But it's hard to rule a world that one has turned one's back upon. And of course, that's not really what The Case is about. It's about the letter of the law. Which is to say, something about forests and trees and a lack of foresight. Yeah. I'm in a bad mood. You want to burn it down? Go for it. But don't expect me to believe you're kind, smart, or patriotic, as you're striking the match. 19-547: To what extent is a government (and its representative operatives: i.e. employees) entitled to keep secrets from its citizens? Secrets enable Special Treatment and are to be avoided. Thus, in the above I read 1-2 Pages of The Summary and 1-2 Pages of The Dissent. Since I would draw the line differently (much differently), I care not one wit where the actual line is drawn. How much of an employee's work does an employer own? Rough Drafts? Notes? Sketches on Paper Napkins? {Thoughts? Ideas? Intentions? Journal Entries? Diary Notes?} 19-968: A Token Fine clearly imposes a Token Penalty. So why is this a case, again? If not Two Dollars, One will suffice. Seriously, The System is so broken it is hard to take almost any part of it seriously. I spent, maybe, a half hour on the past five cases. They matter not to me. On the other hand, a few hours a year reviewing Supreme Court Decisions does seem like a worthwhile expenditure of time... maybe even, a few hours beyond that. 20-507: True Crime. For me, the applicable phrase is Until Proven Guilty. Should I go In or Out? Should I take the cowards way and only ask the Question? Or perhaps, Question now? And after the source inspiration has faded, only Answer then? {So, like, this (or more accurately, the above) is the raw documentation, the raw data. But is there any value added from stripping the questions out free of context and answering them? Perhaps?} 18-956: I would Erode The Power of Land, Money, Stock, Capital, Copyright, & Patent. And at the same time, I would Bolster Labour & Liberty. DISCLAIMER: The Supreme Court Slips act as Writing Prompts and little else. DISCLAIMER: I often only read up to and including /Held. DISCLAIMER: I often don't try to understand The Court's Opinion. DISCLAIMER: I hardly ever consider *? (or what is); rather, I tend to address some Ethical Consideration. {At the time of edit, *? does not exist. It's just a blank space where a word should go. I would guess that word is The Law.} Plug & Play! It's The Right Choice. 18-1259: I do not like Sentencing Ranges. I like Absolute Consistency. The Eloquence of The Story does not impact The Severity of The Crime. It is The Act which is punished; not Any Extenuating Circumstances nor The Characteristics of The Perpetrator or Victim. {The proof that it is Self Defense is that one would rather go to jail than die. And the proof that one would rather go to jail than die is going to jail.} 19-508: I do not want Multiple Court Systems; but rather, One Unified, Cohesive, & Objective Court. Who has final say? 19-511: Are Laws Not Structured Enough? {Computer} Code is far more restrictive in its Syntax than Laws seem to be. Code Always Compiles The Same Way. 19-863: 'A' implies 'A': and not 'The', 'An', or any number of Plural Signifiers. There is no need to read the second page {or any page thereafter} of this forty-one page document. 19-1231: laissez faire requires nobles oblige. Mark my words, Honour is far more important than Modern Man believes. 19-1442: "Eh, ya had yer ch'ince. Or mey'bit ya didn't." 20-940: I'm finding it comical that there is not a Clear & Definitive Legal Syntax after all these years. Then again, Any Exception can be Handled... for enough money. 20A151: A Policy of Equality solves so much. 142: In an Interconnected World it can be very important {to define} where one thing ends and another begins? How The Slice is Made or Apportioned? It's June. So, time to look at May's Slips en mass. Seven Slips on The Month. Not a bad gig, if you can get it. 19-930: Tax on Money In Hand is different from other Taxes, in as much as it is Paid in Kind A Sales Tax is Paid Upon Sales. But Property Tax is Paid On Time {i.e. after a set amount of time has passed}. So, one {the first one} is avoidable; it's essentially a Voluntary Tax. This Entry (along with many more, I would guess) is only tangentially related to The Case at Hand. {And in fact, it is best to assume All Entries are only tangentially related to The Case at Hand.} Potato/Potatoe Tomato/Tomatoe 19-1189: I am not that big on States Right. Of course, I'm not that big on Federal Rights, either. {Actually, I am coming around on States Rights. On the other hand, it really matters whether those States Rights come at the expense of Federal Rights (er, I mean, encroachments) or Citizen Rights.} Wouldn't it be nice to have a simple straightforwardly legal system that every Sixth Grader knew how to navigate? Five minutes on the case. It deserves no longer. But I have a sneaking suspicion if I did study the case, I'd side with the dissent. 19-5807: In my ten minute review of both the case and the issue, I do not see where The Sixth Amendment requires conviction by a unanimous jury. Of course, I also, don't see why it was difficult to get a unanimous decision {in regards to the underlying case, no doubt}. {And see, really, at this remove, I hardly know what my comments mean. So, it's unlikely anyone (or anything, my AI Friends) could figure out my intent... much less agree on what is actually being said. After all, in the absence of a definitive listing, States Rights is a slogan devoid of meaning.} 20-157: Since I assume most warrants are granted via a rubber stamp, I fail to see both why they are important and so often overlooked. {My View Officer: "I need a warrant." Judge: "Do you have cause?" Officer: "Yes." Judge: "Well then, here you go." The real problem isn't warrants, of course. Something along the lines of 2.5% of the population is currently on Parole or Probation or in Jail, Prison, Lock Down, or House Arrest. Sure, my numbers (all of them, everywhere) are likely wrong. But even at 1% that number is (way) too high. And remember, I am talking about currently. So, at a lifelong effect, the extent is far greater. And at 2.5% (1% or even 0.05%) the problem is not warrants but that the notion of a crime is too broad, so most warrants are (to turn a phrase) morally warrantless.} It would be interesting to know the approval (and/or rejection) rate for warrants. The Internet informs me (and/or confirms my previously held opinion) that warrant requests are rarely rejected... downwards of 1 in 1,000 for certain types/jurisdictions. Obviously, my stats are no good {not for this, not for anything, they are all hearsay, in the end.} DISCLAIMER: My stats are no good. Do your own search. 20-334: Court Costs are Taxed {or at least, can be under the right circumstances}. And why not? I mean, I'd never thought to ask. But everything else is taxed. 20-382: "We will settle this like civilized men via a lawsuit and consent decree." 20-437: There must be a tick in every box on the list. And that's it for May. More Slips to come next month. 2021-07-11: Time for The June Slips. There were quite a few of them. 19-123: Can Religious Institutions discriminate where others may not? Since I would grant All Institutions and All Religious Institutions neither boon nor bane I would neither grant nor impose upon Any & All Individuals, I would answer in the negative. As far as I can see (having only read the summary), The Court sidesteps The Question as I put it and decides the case using the Logic of Contract Law. And from there, I would surmise (perhaps, quite incorrectly) a general rule of Tie Goes to The Religious Institution in All Ways: if a clause is optional, it must be decided as The Religious Institution would have it. {So, like, wherever there is a split (an if/then, if you will) The Religious Institution (as I understand it and) as a point of law (at a guess), gets to decide which fork it takes. If it's a some of These and some of Those situation, The Religion (and not The Government) gets to decide whether said Religious Activity falls into the These or Those category... keeping in mind that this is my interpretation and no court in the world cares about my interpretation or understanding of anything.) DISCLAIMER: I think it's pretty standard for me to start writing as soon as I have an idea (any idea, however wrong, minor, or tangential). Nor do I go back and edit. All the preceding are interpretations of the moment. I do not care one iota about The Smith Precedent. I am neither for nor against, as I am totally ignorant and without interest. I am quite happy with Tie Goes and leave it at that. Hey! You a Textbook Writer? You My Friend A-AI? Going top down (or should that be bottom up) from Constitution to State Constitution to Instance might make for a lot of clarity, starting with excerpts of the relevant passage. {This being a suggestion on how Supreme Court Decisions should be both written and interpreted.} {As to Religion (above), My Opinion is unto My Religion to Me. And I am willing to accept Your Opinion is unto Your Religion for You. Thus, any True interpretation of Religious Freedom must take into account not just Organized Religion, but Personal Opinion (as it changes on a whim), as well. Fundamentally, Religion should be silent in the same way Race, Gender, and so on should be silent... something Justice is Blind To.} 20+ Minutes, now. But a lot of that is hunt and peck typing. And for fifty odd pages {of reading material in this slip}, that's nothing. Smith: Not Interested SUPREME BEING: Caught my eye. I'm saving this footnote for a bit later {as in, I intended to read it a bit later; further commentary will not be forthcoming}. That's some powerful stuff. Full On Religion can be a powerful force... really powerful, I mean, and then some. Yeah {presumably some days later}, I'm done. So, I didn't even bother scrolling through the last fifty pages. Such is my interest in The Law. 19-416: How far does Federal Jurisdiction extend? Not this far. And I don't need to look any further than that. {A: The minimal glue needed to hold The States together. The minimal strength needed to protect Citizen Rights on their behalf.} I expect little from The Slips. This is a technical issue. And in fact, I will only be reading Alito's Dissent. At first, the claim seemed thin at best, reaching for deep pockets. But if honour is to have any meaning, those pockets must be vulnerable and all such claims must be taken seriously... if seriously presented. I do not know the standard for summary judgement on the facts. Is there one? If not, this is part of the problem. And it may not be a solvable problem. {Summary Judgements against abusive lawsuits are in the interest of The Rule of Law. But any rule of Summary Judgement will result in Systemic Bias against Exceptions to The Rule.} DISCLAIMER: How many do I need? Private Ramblings. Move Along. I am taking a survey (wildly incomplete), noting my thoughts and feelings as I go with no regard (even it is hoped) for accuracy. 19-422: I do not favour or support The Bureaucracy with its endless spin-off of agencies. My distaste grows ever further when the line between Public and Private is blurred. If I had complete control (over everything), I wonder what changes I would make... along with the Unseen problems to be found therein. 19-783: Silly Technicalities. When wrong doers are acquitted, it matters not the reason. Justice is not served. I do not agree with the endless codification of law. Rough ideas are good enough. I'm OK with Thou Shall Not Steal and the like. {In other words, I am for letting a jury decide both The Law and The Facts on a case-by-case basis.} 19-840: An unenforceable provision is without force; and thus, can cause no injury. In some ways, I can appreciate these legal faints and counter-faints. But their very existence (the need and effectiveness thereof) undermines The Rule of Law. DISCLAIMER: There is no reason to believe the issue I see, focus upon, or discuss is the same issue that The Court sees, focuses upon, or discusses. The Act is 906 Pages Long! On that basis alone it (and every other law of like-minded length) should be struck down. {Essentially, I would like every Sixth Grader to both know and understand The Law... all of it.} 19-897: Regarding The Nature of Citizenship and its Denial. I would grant Citizenship to all who both make it to these shores and so desire it. Citizenship can and should be Universally Applied. The most pronounced impact would needs be on the lack of aid offered to Citizens Travelling Abroad. {A person on vacation could become a US Citizen. But upon return to their home country, that Citizenship might not mean much.} I got two pages into the thirty-eight page slip. 19-1039: Eminent Domain. Yep. Now, that's a tricky one. I would be inclined to look at all land as being leased from The Government. So, seizure is really just an early lease closure {aka a foreclosure}, which can be remedied by shortening the period of the assumed lease as appropriate. Of course, this case (as I read it) is more about which government we are talking about when we are talking about The Government {than anything having to do with Eminent Domain}. I got two pages in. 19-1155: "Adverse Credibility Determination" I care not about the case. I care about lying {under oath} in the generalized case. I mean, in any Philosophy of Law, Determination of Truth needs be at the core. Ten Commandments Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness Thou Shall Not Say The Lord's Name in Vain: Arguably, Don't Lie Under Oath or Don't Oath Falsely {I have discussed elsewhere (on this site) how I view The Ten Commandments as a rough scaffolding upon any meaningful Rule of Law must be based. Just replace God with Rule of Law and one might start to see what I mean. Or if that is not helpful, if a Rule of Law is not The Highest Authority, it will not be treated as such.} 19-1414: a case which concerns the authority of Indian Police Officers on a Public Right of Way which Traverses Indian Territory... or so I will claim. Here's another Philosophical Question for your Legal Code. How do competing governments (Foreign National, Federal, State, Local, Indian) interweave and overlap? I can't say I feel very much like weighing in on the issues. Still, my mind is spending time wrapping itself around legal issues... if not these legal issues. 19-1434: Bureaucratic Matters I wonder when I stopped believing we lived in a Democracy? Certainly, any idealism must have taken a severe Hit upon learning about Discrimination & Poverty. Odd, how those go together. As if the one caused the other... as if that was the real driving force of the one over the other. Though, that is a simplification. I want simple: simple laws, simple rules, and a simple life. The Case at hand is already too complex. The system cannot (need not) be tweaked. It's not a matter of fine tuning. Something is fundamentally off. And I for one think complexity is to blame... perhaps, completely and wholly. Simplicity yields Clarity & Understanding. It's hard to cheat under such a system. Equality, as well. Disliking Humans as a Class, makes it all the easier to dislike individual members all the more. DISCLAIMER: Note the excessive divergence from The Slip to My Commentary. It's not about The Slip. That's the starting line. Sure. But like as not, I run backwards. I think the rule (or a rule) is that The President can (needs must be able to) dismiss those s/h/we appoints (i.e. have final authority over) unless the appointment was approved by The Senate and tenure (non-dismiss-ability) was included as part of the deal. "Meanwhile, I am reviewing laws I don't respect for a society I don't like." Though, if I deconstruct it all the way, stripping it down to brass tacks, what would I have? What? And for why? 20-297: Is an UnReported UnTruth a meaningful slight? Or better yet, if someone makes a mistake but corrects their action prior to its defective nature causing any harm, does the mistake matter? Do not pencils come with erasers for a reason? 19-5410: Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) - 15 Mandatory Years after Third Qualifying Offense. This case has something to do with that. Reckless and Deliberate are two different words meaning two different things. So are Dog and Cat. Wow. I just can't be bothered. I've seen quite a few cases about the ACCA or some similar law. The stakes are high. But in the end, I think the cases highlight the failure of the different Federal, State, and Local Authorities to use consistent wording within and between Legal Codes. Basically, it's a garbled mess. DISCLAIMER: This isn't about The Law. DISCLAIMER: This isn't about The Cases. It's raw data for A-AI, something for me to do, and little else. 19-8709: Meaningless Errors are Meaningless. Seriously, what part of Meaningless Error do you not understand? Fair enough. Clearly, the meaningless part. Still, something that is meaningless is meaningless (such as this entry), error or not. It truly is amazing how much time is wasted on the simplest of things. I do not like the mens rea standard. I do not care so much what the individual knew but what a reasonable person would have known under the same circumstances. Stupidity (wilful or otherwise) should not be rewarded. 20-18: Are there exceptions? Maybe. Note, the Headline Comment was made after reading a single page of a forty-five page Slip. And in a nutshell "Are there exceptions? Maybe." is exactly what is wrong with the law. "Are there exceptions? Probably not; but you have a right to argue the case; and once in a blue moon we might (at our discretion) grant leniency for extreme (and I do mean, extreme) outliers" would be closer to the truth (and/or as I would have it) and such a statement is completely un-indicative of Supreme Court review. {DISCLAIMER: Quotations "hardly ever" refer to actual samples from the text or conversations of others. In (all of) the preceding, "Quotations" are for cognitive clarity and not attribution.} Can an officer give chase? Typically. Are other factors Contra-Indicative? Yes. Shall we address every possible permutation? We? No. You? It would appear for some that is most definitely the case. I have no need to support widespread motor traffic in any way, shape, or form. Drunk Pedestrians are not typically a hazard to others, as any stroll through a Bar Area on a Saturday Night (at least, in my experience) will attest. DISCLAIMER: Clearly, my interest in The actual cases has taken a nose dive. If no reasonable judge would deny a warrant, c/s/would (or better yet s/c/would, pronounced sh-would) not an implied warrant (especially in the case of a hot pursuit) be justified? {s/c/would: should, would, and/or could as a compound word.} Yes. I think I can live with Implied Warrants, subject to Judicial and Juried Review. 20-107: Is it (you know, it, what the case is about) a per se physical taking? I would say yes, as does The Court. I am reading the Held Subsection first. Decision -> Summary -> Rarely The Expanded Abstract -> First Few Sections (often followed by The Last Section) of Dissents over Concurring or Main Opinion Though, Concurring Opinions come before Dissents. And I tend to take them in order. And humorously enough, I believe (thus, meaningless, empty, uninformed, and unfounded opinion must surely follow), The Court's Decision can be circumvented easily enough by transforming the per se physical taking into a Licensing Requirement. So we are nullifying a law that can be easily rewritten. Who and What is served by such narrow-mindedness? "Hey's. How' about's I don't break your legs and let's you walks out of here in one piece..." "Oh, hey. Boss." "OK. Rights. My lawyerly-minded associate informs me we's just going to call it a Permitting Fee... which if you's don'ts pays we's gonna carves you ups into a thousand little itty-bitty pieces. Capiche?" Tomato/Tomatoe If the actions served a compelling government, social, or really any interest (but the obvious one), I doubt I would object. Then again (and this is where things get tricky, so saying much of anything about the case's base issue is quite meaningless, for anyone, The Court included), since The Government is Democratically Elected, government, social, or really any interest The Government is willing to support is (by definition) compelling. It gets circular quickly. Yeah. If I read The Constitution over again, I'd probably be struck by what a wishy-washy completely-subjective document it is. {These days, I completely side-step The Constitution by acknowledging that it is a Aspirational Document. The Constitution has never been honoured in any meaningful way and it never will be. Period. End of story. Arguing over what the writers intended when they never honoured their words themselves is meaningless and trivial. Yes, I am an absolutist. Carving out exceptions is functionally equivalent to hollowing out a law.} 20-222: You can call it Capitalism. But you'd be wrong. I'm guessing not "misrepresenting" certain issues is extremely difficult. One knows. And then, one tells. But there is always (yes, always) some degree of delay (if only momentary). And during that delay (if only for that moment), there must be some degree of representing the past as the present, which, of course, is some degree of a "misrepresentation". Who proves what? When? A slicing and dicing I find difficult to get excited about. 20-255: Is Cheer Leading a sport? Sure. This isn't the issue. But is it a better issue? A Society either values Free Speech or it does not. Free does not mean Controlled and/or Regulated. This is a fun Case to read. I'm having a hard time not getting sucked into the details. Who is spending the money to fight this case and why? One (or more) of The Justices (not saying which one [or more]) is comically wrong. 20-315: LPR w/ a TPS. Do you care? I do not. In other news, an effective Rule of Law renders immigration concerns unimportant. Lower The Walls! Citizenship For All! 20-319: Is murder legal where suicide is not? I mean, was not the force excessive (clearly and definitely) by virtue of the outcome? Qualified Immunity is a stupid concept. Pure & Simple. I wonder how many murders start as an attempt to subdue? More reasonably, I am in favor of Body Cams and Outcome Based Punishment. Mens Rea: Not Important Qualified Immunity: Nope. Never. A more interesting question is the extent to which freedoms can be curtailed in an effort to provide aid and assistance? Where does resistance end and a fight for survival begin? I am, also, in favor of both an unarmed populace and an unarmed police force. DISCLAIMER: My words are so much not about the case... so much so, I'm thinking "?" > "." . {In the future, I just might talk in questions rather than answers... or even, mere statements of opinion.} DISCLAIMER: I am not commenting on The Law as it is; but rather, upon The Law as I would have it. 20-440: Assignor Estoppel! Yay or Nay? You like these laws? Then you live with the results. Patents & Copyrights create Rents. They do not stimulate invention; but rather, stifle it. Is long standing illegality legal? 20-472: Extension? To grant or not to grant? Is continuity in an extension required and/or important? The Set of "Who Cares?" does not include me. Though, anyone who believes The Good Ole US of A constitutes a Free Market might find The Case illuminating. Regulations Decide Profits; and hence, shape The Market. And a Shaped Market is not a Free Market. 20-512: The NCAA. Read The Opinion If You Care. On the surface (and/or at first blush), I would say Colleges hold a Monopoly on Collegiate Athletics. But it's really just a Monopoly on Collegiate Athletics... a definitive subset of Athletics. I don't actually value Spectator Sports nor do I find the individual participants to be important. Further, I tend to find Local, Amateur, Children's, and Minor League Sports to be just as entertaining as The Pros. I am going to read The Case History. These can be pretty good History Lessons. I enjoyed The History Lesson and found The Concurring Opinion persuasive. But these parts were all I read. 20-543: Defining Ducks! If it looks like a duck... 20-1212: On Finality. It ain't over until it is over unless it's already over. Well, that's not correct. But do you care? Multi-Jurisdictional Problems. 20-5904: Drugs! I'd legalize all vice, as the easiest fair clear-line rule. I do not care about complicated sentencing rules. {Legalize Vice! What I would not legalize is coercion. Of course, in a so-called Free Market, coercion and trying to make a living are hard to tease apart.} 2021-08-09: I pulled The July Slips (all three of them). And I believe that's it for the year; which means, I can start proof reading these notes soon. I doubt there will be any graphs or much in the way of {Curly Braced Comments} made at the time of edit. {Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! I mean, right on the graphs, The A-AI can do that. But as to extraneous comments? It's pretty much always been the more the merrier.} Questions! Questions! Questions! Questions are the way to go. 19-251: Is the spending of money a type of speech; and therefore, protected by The First Amendment? Is confidentiality a meaningful prerequisite to Freedom of Speech? Are either of these questions close to the question The Court addresses in this case? Two Pages In and based on the remand, I expect Crap Logic to follow. I am expecting little more than convoluted silliness from The Court. And I want to read This Slip; but then, I'm not really looking forward to reading this slip. So, days pass as I do other things. Eh, maybe, I should bite the bullet and admit I really don't want to read This Slip. It does come down (in my opinion) as to whether someone can honorably hold an opinion, which they are afraid to verbalize? That is to say is it not both a Right & Responsibility to Express Political Opinion? Strict or Exacting? Can they even tell them apart? Could anyone? I do not see how it would apply at one level and not another (State v Federal). Wow! Is that really what this case is about? It looks like it is. Differential application at the {presumably, different} levels. Or perhaps, more importantly, challenged at this level, so decided at this level. In the end, I place anonymity on the low end of importance. {If you are honourable and I am honourable, does either of us require anonymity from the other? I would say no. It's only when dishonour is involved that anonymity becomes important.} Let's pound these few out, so I can post, while the posting is good. 19-1257: Voting Rights and/or Voting Laws. It's a silly thing to make criminal. I've always been in The Political Minority. This Slip went fast. The previous was more interesting. Essentially, I believe a person should be allowed to post mail (any mail) by whatever means (or chain of possession) they find convenient. And that The Highest Court in The Land should be looking at a case that questions that clear-line rule is bizarre to me. +/- 1,200! Still believe in Democracy? That's like half of the states (every year) for fifty years. Well. I guess, you got to give it to them for trying. DISCLAIMER: This is more a discussion of how I would have The Law than The Law itself {All Disclaimers are expansive to include everything I've ever written, here, there, or anywhere.} {Disclaimers by their widespread existence prove Freedom of Speech, Religion, and Thought do not exist to any meaningful extent. A person who can be sued (i.e. monetarily punished) for what they say is obviously (yes, this is obvious, dullard) not bequeathed with a Freedom of Expression.} 2021-08-26: I simply don't feel like reading a slip. Does any of this matter? Is The Law the least bit Honourable in Conception? {NO! IT IS NOT!} 2021-09-17: ditto 2021-10-18: So, like, it's not that I've forgotten. I have four (current) files in this note app. It's not that long of a list. I see this file day-after-day, as one of those notes is The Journal Project, which I tend to reference a few times a day. So day-after-day, I am simply choosing not to read (and/or skip-skim) a brief. Eh, I should finish this soon. 2021-10-24: Let us continue. 19-1257: No further comments. 20-1084: I do not value stupidity in any way, no matter the branding. In a situation where every objection must be raised in order to perfect (and/or preserve) said objection, it makes sense to raise all possible objections. What can be the benefit in omitting a possible argument? Especially after one considers that most arguments are dismissed; and as such, most are little more than wasted effort, Hail Mary's, as it were? Does not a Defendant have the right to pursue any and all avenues of relief? And any lawyer who leaves a single stone unturned deficient? Would a Lawyer not be deficient if said Lawyer did not support a claim of Defective Counsel against themselves in support of their Client? There is just one case in September. And then, that's it for the year. 21A23: Slam Dunk! How could it not be? I really have no interest in Simple Matters of Law. If it comes down to a Clause in a Contract, I care not. The End TEXT_FILE: NO_HTML (c) Copyright Brett Paufler # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Ties Go To The Weaker Party Definitive Legal Syntax Easily Understandable Legal Code States Rights Do I wish to expand these ideas any further? Let us see. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Yes, I do wish to expand these ideas further. And as such, I will turn them into questions for that project. Should Ties Go To The Weaker Party? What are the benefits of a Definitive Legal Syntax? What are the benefits of an Easily Understandable Legal Code? What do I mean by States Rights? And finally, do I wish to make a foray down the Federal, State, Local, and Tribal divisions? (c) Copyright Brett Paufler 2021-11-19: Editing Complete EOF: End of File