Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has released its argument calendar for the upcoming term, I've picked five cases (in chronological order) that I think some incels will be interested in. They run the gamut from gun rights to abortion to glowies.
1. United States v. Tsarnaev
Argument scheduled for Oct 13, 2021
Topics: Sixth Amendment, impartial jury selection, death penalty
Questions Presented:
1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit erred in concluding that Tsarnaev’s capital sentences must be vacated on the ground that the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, during its 21-day voir dire, did not ask each prospective juror for a specific accounting of the pretrial media coverage that he or she had read, heard, or seen about Tsarnaev’s case.
2) Whether the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts committed reversible error at the penalty phase of Tsarnaev’s trial by excluding evidence that Tsarnaev’s older brother was allegedly involved in different crimes two years before the offenses for which Tsarnaev was convicted.
Background: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother Tamerlan detonated two pressure-cooker devices near the finish line of the Boston Marathon in 2013. The explosion and subsequent manhunt resulted in the deaths of four normies and hundreds of injuries. Dzhokhar was sentenced to multiple counts of death and multiple counts of life imprisonment on a 30-count indictment. Last year, the First Circuit vacated his death sentences, noting that members of the jury were unduly exposed to pretrial media coverage, and that at the sentencing-phase hearing, the district court excluded evidence that Tamerlan was involved in different crimes, thus depriving Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the right to a fair trial.
Commentary: I have previously written about the First Circuit's decision on incels.is. Obviously, I hope the Court rules in favour of Tsarnaev, to further preserve criminal defendants', including future ERs', right to a fair trial in an era where social media has made pretrial publicity a near certainty. There's also the added bonus of pissing off the femoid survivors of the bombing who would have to re-testify at a second sentencing-phase hearing.
2. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen
Argument scheduled for Nov 3, 2021
Topics: Second Amendment, gun rights
Question Presented: Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.
Background: In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment generally protects an individual's right to possess a firearm in their home, and incorporated such a right to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. New York has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States, requiring that applicants show a "special need" for self-defense in order to receive a concealed-carry permit. Two ordinary law-abiding citizens were denied such permits and challenged New York's gun laws in federal court. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed their lawsuit, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
Commentary: Incels, especially manlets and framelets, should have every right to protect themselves from violent and psychopathic normies, with a firearm or otherwise. Interested to see whether the Supreme Court will expand Heller and declare New York's gun laws unconstitutional.
3. Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga
Argument scheduled for Nov 8, 2021
Topics: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, state-secrets privilege, FBI sting operations
Question Presented: Whether Section 1806(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) displaces the state-secrets privilege and authorizes a district court to resolve, in camera and ex parte, the merits of a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of government surveillance by considering the privileged evidence.
Background: In 2006, the FBI recruited a confidential informant, a fitness instructor, to befriend and surveil members of the Islamic Center of Irvine (ICOI) in California. He pretended to convert to Islam and bugged the mosque, homes, and businesses of ICOI members. When the informant began to talk about violent jihad, the ICOI banned him and reported him to law enforcement. The FBI ended the operation in 2008, after catching exactly zero terrorists. When this was made public, three members of the ICOI sued the FBI for violations of FISA and their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California sided with the FBI and dismissed most of the claims on the grounds of the state-secrets privilege, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and held that the district court should have conducted an in camera review under Section 1806(f) of FISA.
Commentary: Considering that much of the Supreme Court's membership consists of the Bush administration's lackeys, it is likely that the Court will, unfortunately, abdicate more of the judiciary's responsibilities to the executive branch and shield the FBI from accountability. Between this failed sting operation and the FBI's more recent handling of the Nassar sexual abuse cases, it is evident that the glowniggers are sometimes about as useful as a hole puncher in a condom factory.
4. City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising of Texas, Inc.
Argument scheduled for Nov 10, 2021
Topics: First Amendment, content-based restrictions on speech
Question Presented: Whether the city code of Austin, TX, whose planning regulations distinguish between on- and off-premise signs, engages in facially unconstitutional content-based regulation under the First Amendment.
Background: Reagan National Advertising of Texas is a company that operates billboards. They filed an application to the city to digitize exercising billboards, but the city refused, because the city code does not allow digitization of off-premise, as opposed to on-premise, signs. The company filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, which determined that the city code was content-neutral, and sided with the city. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the sign was content-based, and sided with Reagan Advertising after applying strict scrutiny based on the two-step Reed test. In Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015), the Supreme Court held that laws that are facially content-based must be held to strict scrutiny even if the purpose of the laws are content-neutral.
Commentary: For those who are unfamiliar with First Amendment jurisprudence, when evaluating the constitutionality of a law under the Free Speech Clause, the U.S. courts distinguish content-neutral restrictions on speech from content-based restrictions. Content-neutral laws, such as a law regulating the time and place but not the substance of speech, are held to "intermediate scrutiny". Content-based laws, laws that discriminate on the substance of speech, are held to "strict scrutiny". This requires the government demonstrate that the law furthers a "fundamental governmental interest", is "narrowly tailored" to that interest, and achieves that interest using the "least restrictive means"—which some scholars describe as "constitutional death knell". Applying strict scrutiny and the First Amendment, the federal courts have invalidated laws that would prohibit simulated child pornography, hate speech, cross-burning, depictions of animal abuse, encouragement to riot, among others.
Although this case involves relatively benign speech—the digitization of billboards—the distinction between content-neutral and content-based regulations is fundamental to First Amendment analysis. This is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to answer ambiguities left open by Reed.
5. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
Arguments scheduled for Dec 1, 2021
*insert photo of circus*
Topic: Fourteenth Amendment, abortion
Question Presented:
1) Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.
2) Whether the validity of a pre-viability abortion law should be analyzed under Casey's "undue burden" standard or Hellerstedt's balancing of "benefits and burdens".
3) Whether abortion providers have third-party standing to invalidate a law that prohibits late-term abortions.
Background: In a direct challenge to Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which upheld the constitutional right of femoids to obtain elective abortions prior to fetal viability, the state of Mississippi created a law that banned abortions after 15 weeks. The law was immediately enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, which later granted summary judgment for the state's one and only abortion clinic, Jackson Women's Health Organization. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit sided with the abortion clinic, invoking stare decisis.
Commentary: I mean, look, we've already talked about abortion here on incels.is. I'd just like to remind everyone that I am personally pro-death, not pro-choice. But yes, this is an opportunity for the Court to directly overturn Roe and Casey and return the abortion question to the states. It will be the most talked-about and most controversial Supreme Court decision of the 2021/22 term, no matter what. Expect rabid feminazis and Bible-thumping cuckservatives to be at each other's throats. No doubt about it.
1. United States v. Tsarnaev
Argument scheduled for Oct 13, 2021
Topics: Sixth Amendment, impartial jury selection, death penalty
Questions Presented:
1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit erred in concluding that Tsarnaev’s capital sentences must be vacated on the ground that the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, during its 21-day voir dire, did not ask each prospective juror for a specific accounting of the pretrial media coverage that he or she had read, heard, or seen about Tsarnaev’s case.
2) Whether the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts committed reversible error at the penalty phase of Tsarnaev’s trial by excluding evidence that Tsarnaev’s older brother was allegedly involved in different crimes two years before the offenses for which Tsarnaev was convicted.
Background: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother Tamerlan detonated two pressure-cooker devices near the finish line of the Boston Marathon in 2013. The explosion and subsequent manhunt resulted in the deaths of four normies and hundreds of injuries. Dzhokhar was sentenced to multiple counts of death and multiple counts of life imprisonment on a 30-count indictment. Last year, the First Circuit vacated his death sentences, noting that members of the jury were unduly exposed to pretrial media coverage, and that at the sentencing-phase hearing, the district court excluded evidence that Tamerlan was involved in different crimes, thus depriving Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the right to a fair trial.
Commentary: I have previously written about the First Circuit's decision on incels.is. Obviously, I hope the Court rules in favour of Tsarnaev, to further preserve criminal defendants', including future ERs', right to a fair trial in an era where social media has made pretrial publicity a near certainty. There's also the added bonus of pissing off the femoid survivors of the bombing who would have to re-testify at a second sentencing-phase hearing.
2. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen
Argument scheduled for Nov 3, 2021
Topics: Second Amendment, gun rights
Question Presented: Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.
Background: In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment generally protects an individual's right to possess a firearm in their home, and incorporated such a right to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. New York has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States, requiring that applicants show a "special need" for self-defense in order to receive a concealed-carry permit. Two ordinary law-abiding citizens were denied such permits and challenged New York's gun laws in federal court. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed their lawsuit, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
Commentary: Incels, especially manlets and framelets, should have every right to protect themselves from violent and psychopathic normies, with a firearm or otherwise. Interested to see whether the Supreme Court will expand Heller and declare New York's gun laws unconstitutional.
3. Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga
Argument scheduled for Nov 8, 2021
Topics: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, state-secrets privilege, FBI sting operations
Question Presented: Whether Section 1806(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) displaces the state-secrets privilege and authorizes a district court to resolve, in camera and ex parte, the merits of a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of government surveillance by considering the privileged evidence.
Background: In 2006, the FBI recruited a confidential informant, a fitness instructor, to befriend and surveil members of the Islamic Center of Irvine (ICOI) in California. He pretended to convert to Islam and bugged the mosque, homes, and businesses of ICOI members. When the informant began to talk about violent jihad, the ICOI banned him and reported him to law enforcement. The FBI ended the operation in 2008, after catching exactly zero terrorists. When this was made public, three members of the ICOI sued the FBI for violations of FISA and their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California sided with the FBI and dismissed most of the claims on the grounds of the state-secrets privilege, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and held that the district court should have conducted an in camera review under Section 1806(f) of FISA.
Commentary: Considering that much of the Supreme Court's membership consists of the Bush administration's lackeys, it is likely that the Court will, unfortunately, abdicate more of the judiciary's responsibilities to the executive branch and shield the FBI from accountability. Between this failed sting operation and the FBI's more recent handling of the Nassar sexual abuse cases, it is evident that the glowniggers are sometimes about as useful as a hole puncher in a condom factory.
4. City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising of Texas, Inc.
Argument scheduled for Nov 10, 2021
Topics: First Amendment, content-based restrictions on speech
Question Presented: Whether the city code of Austin, TX, whose planning regulations distinguish between on- and off-premise signs, engages in facially unconstitutional content-based regulation under the First Amendment.
Background: Reagan National Advertising of Texas is a company that operates billboards. They filed an application to the city to digitize exercising billboards, but the city refused, because the city code does not allow digitization of off-premise, as opposed to on-premise, signs. The company filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, which determined that the city code was content-neutral, and sided with the city. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the sign was content-based, and sided with Reagan Advertising after applying strict scrutiny based on the two-step Reed test. In Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015), the Supreme Court held that laws that are facially content-based must be held to strict scrutiny even if the purpose of the laws are content-neutral.
Commentary: For those who are unfamiliar with First Amendment jurisprudence, when evaluating the constitutionality of a law under the Free Speech Clause, the U.S. courts distinguish content-neutral restrictions on speech from content-based restrictions. Content-neutral laws, such as a law regulating the time and place but not the substance of speech, are held to "intermediate scrutiny". Content-based laws, laws that discriminate on the substance of speech, are held to "strict scrutiny". This requires the government demonstrate that the law furthers a "fundamental governmental interest", is "narrowly tailored" to that interest, and achieves that interest using the "least restrictive means"—which some scholars describe as "constitutional death knell". Applying strict scrutiny and the First Amendment, the federal courts have invalidated laws that would prohibit simulated child pornography, hate speech, cross-burning, depictions of animal abuse, encouragement to riot, among others.
Although this case involves relatively benign speech—the digitization of billboards—the distinction between content-neutral and content-based regulations is fundamental to First Amendment analysis. This is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to answer ambiguities left open by Reed.
5. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
Arguments scheduled for Dec 1, 2021
*insert photo of circus*
Topic: Fourteenth Amendment, abortion
Question Presented:
1) Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.
2) Whether the validity of a pre-viability abortion law should be analyzed under Casey's "undue burden" standard or Hellerstedt's balancing of "benefits and burdens".
3) Whether abortion providers have third-party standing to invalidate a law that prohibits late-term abortions.
Background: In a direct challenge to Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which upheld the constitutional right of femoids to obtain elective abortions prior to fetal viability, the state of Mississippi created a law that banned abortions after 15 weeks. The law was immediately enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, which later granted summary judgment for the state's one and only abortion clinic, Jackson Women's Health Organization. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit sided with the abortion clinic, invoking stare decisis.
Commentary: I mean, look, we've already talked about abortion here on incels.is.
I'd just like to remind everyone that I am personally pro-death, not pro-choice. But yes, this is an opportunity for the Court to directly overturn Roe and Casey and return the abortion question to the states. It will be the most talked-about and most controversial Supreme Court decision of the 2021/22 term, no matter what. Expect rabid feminazis and Bible-thumping cuckservatives to be at each other's throats. No doubt about it.@Fat Link @Master @0Energy0Happyness @crew2 @Therapywasaaste @Dotrinfobe @squirrelsonfire2 @Pixycel @IncelCatechumen @ordinaryotaku @dreadtheblackpill @CrackingYs @Linesnap99 @SchrodingersDick @RecessedChinCel @Escthectrler @BlkPillPres @slavcel11 @TINMAN @your personality @Caesercel @NBAYoungBoy @GreaseCel @copecel2 @Subhuman Niceguy @Emba @ThoughtfulCel @Mogged Loner @Saudade @Tiredpoorcel @trying to ascend @Copexodius Maximus @thevenon @ilieknothing @mNFwTJ3wz9 @shii410 @based_meme @SlayerSlayer
yeah most of you probably dont give a shit about this except the abortion case and maybe guns but whatever im bored
yeah most of you probably dont give a shit about this except the abortion case and maybe guns but whatever im bored
