Justices Thomas and Alito insist that the Court must hear disputes between two states. Florida v. California is a good example of why I remain unpersuaded.
Anyone else find it ironic that FLORIDA is complaining about the quality of other state's drivers?
Granted, most of the problematic drivers here are the snowbirds, driving on upper East Coast or Midwest licenses, now that Trump has driven off the Canadiens.
"Now, Alabama is asking the justices for a stay under (you guessed it) Purcell. Just to underline the sequencing here, the original district court injunctions were not issued too close to the election. The only reason why things got messed up was because of the Supreme Court’s intervention on May 11—intervention that, as Justice Sotomayor’s dissent made clear, should itself have been foreclosed by Purcell. For the Court to turn around now and invoke Purcell to allow Alabama to use a racially gerrymandered map, when it ran right over Purcell 21 days ago to wipe away a lower-court ruling blocking that map, would, in my view, only further exacerbate the appearance that the justices are playing partisan politics in these cases. That doesn’t mean that it won’t happen, alas."
This last minute argument from the state of Alabama seems ludicrous on its face...as you imply with more grace.
If the Court agrees, won't it risk looking ludicrous as well? Not to mention undignified, which I think the some of the CJ's prior comments suggests he really does care about.
Thanks for highlighting this case. I'd like to think that by bringing attention to the outright hypocrisy of the Court relying on Purcell after running rough-shod over it will make it a little less likely the Court will do so.
I hope I am not anticipating a development in disputes between US states that will not happen. But who knows how this Supreme Court would rule if one state challenges another because it argues that the latter should respect the former’s gun laws under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, even if they conflict with its own public policies designed to protect lives and public safety? I understand that many U.S. states allow "permitless" or "constitutional" carry, meaning that anyone who can legally own a firearm under state and federal law can carry a concealed handgun in public without needing to acquire a specific state-issued permit. And they can also openly carry a long gun or a semi-automatic rifle which they legally own into a public space like a grocery store without a special permit, provided it isn't brandished in a threatening manner – whatever that “limitation” or “restraint” means in practice, since stores have their own rules about bringing guns onto their premises. So, if say Texans drive to Massachusetts to attend the graduations of their offspring at prestigious academic institutions, it might be argued they should be allowed to shop openly carrying or concealing (depending on the weapon) their weapons from Texas at Trader Joe’s or Star Market locations in the Commonwealth, or in the luxury stores along Newbury Street in Boston ? Texas might bring a suit against Massachusetts if its residents are denied this “god given right”, and/or Massachusetts a suit against Texas for allowing dangerous behavior that endangers public safety and lives in its jurisdiction. Is this another reason among the increasing number in so many diverse cases why the arguments of Justices Alito and Thomas should be rejected? The word “unpersuaded” would a very mild one, or reaction from my perspective, if this (for now hypothetical but not unthinkable) situation were to arise. Or am I being unreasonably paranoid, even in this era of "shell game" prosecutions and justifiable presumptions of "irregularity" for government officials and departments, in thinking that this potential extension of the Second Amendment, in which the nationwide rule on access to, and the locations and circumstances in which an individual can bring an automatic weapon of lethality unimaginably greater than the muskets of 250 years ago would become based on the loosest or in practice almost absence of restrictions that any one state may decide to impose?
There's some similarity, at least in moral terms, between your hypothetical scenario regarding varying gun laws and the controversy about mifepristone being available by mail order in states that have outlawed abortion.
One justification in the latter case is that a medical practitioner in one state cannot know if a recipient of mifepristone in another state will use the drug unlawfully. For example, she could hypothetically take it to another state where abortion is legal before using it. Perhaps the same argument applies to your gun-law scenario, though I suppose that would depend on the particular gun laws.
"analogizing California’s and Washington’s (alleged) licensing practices to “one nation sending dangerous people into another.” (I’ll come back to the “facts” below.)" I did not see any comment on the "facts" as promised. While they are not necessary to the legal analysis of the case, I would have welcomed your comments. That something is amiss in California's licensing practices is suggested by your comment that the driver in question (whose immigrant status is irrelevant) could identify only one of four highway signs.
not necessarily. any system of licensing will have cases that slip through the cracks. there are inevitably ways to cheat and even without cheating occasionally people get lucky. so a single incident doesn't necessarily mean that anything is amiss
Did I miss something, or did professor Vladeck not describe "the political and administrative channels Congress has already created to address these very issues" for the case of Florida's complaints about California and Washington?
The Arizona v. New Mexico case he cites said "The pending state-court action in New Mexico by the Arizona utilities involved in this case raises the same constitutional issues and provides an appropriate forum for litigating such issues." As far as I know, Florida has no pending state-court action and cannot bring one (at least if the dissenting Justices are accurate in that respect; I'm not a lawyer).
If the only argument is that certain state/state controversies don't deserve the Supreme Court's attention even if there's no other way to resolve the issue, it would help to have that more clearly stated and explained, at least for me.
And another on the list of why this racist majority has to be, when the country rights itself, chastised and its errors corrected. We had, post Civil War, a century of this kiind of racist rule. We do not need more proof of why the Court should be expanded to resemble the rainbow of the American people, instead of the white (incl. uncle-tom-white) of its currect catholic-conservative racist Six.
Anyone else find it ironic that FLORIDA is complaining about the quality of other state's drivers?
Granted, most of the problematic drivers here are the snowbirds, driving on upper East Coast or Midwest licenses, now that Trump has driven off the Canadiens.
It's not that they're from out of state, it's that they're old and potentially either blind and/or senile.
Don't rule out the "Daytona Rejects" driving 2x the speed limit. Those are in-state only and dangerous too.
The people who learned to drive on Model Ts are half from here and half from places where they don't drive when they aren't here.
"Now, Alabama is asking the justices for a stay under (you guessed it) Purcell. Just to underline the sequencing here, the original district court injunctions were not issued too close to the election. The only reason why things got messed up was because of the Supreme Court’s intervention on May 11—intervention that, as Justice Sotomayor’s dissent made clear, should itself have been foreclosed by Purcell. For the Court to turn around now and invoke Purcell to allow Alabama to use a racially gerrymandered map, when it ran right over Purcell 21 days ago to wipe away a lower-court ruling blocking that map, would, in my view, only further exacerbate the appearance that the justices are playing partisan politics in these cases. That doesn’t mean that it won’t happen, alas."
This last minute argument from the state of Alabama seems ludicrous on its face...as you imply with more grace.
If the Court agrees, won't it risk looking ludicrous as well? Not to mention undignified, which I think the some of the CJ's prior comments suggests he really does care about.
Thanks for highlighting this case. I'd like to think that by bringing attention to the outright hypocrisy of the Court relying on Purcell after running rough-shod over it will make it a little less likely the Court will do so.
Though it wasn't an issue in flattening Purcell after invoking it in the Texas case.
I hope I am not anticipating a development in disputes between US states that will not happen. But who knows how this Supreme Court would rule if one state challenges another because it argues that the latter should respect the former’s gun laws under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, even if they conflict with its own public policies designed to protect lives and public safety? I understand that many U.S. states allow "permitless" or "constitutional" carry, meaning that anyone who can legally own a firearm under state and federal law can carry a concealed handgun in public without needing to acquire a specific state-issued permit. And they can also openly carry a long gun or a semi-automatic rifle which they legally own into a public space like a grocery store without a special permit, provided it isn't brandished in a threatening manner – whatever that “limitation” or “restraint” means in practice, since stores have their own rules about bringing guns onto their premises. So, if say Texans drive to Massachusetts to attend the graduations of their offspring at prestigious academic institutions, it might be argued they should be allowed to shop openly carrying or concealing (depending on the weapon) their weapons from Texas at Trader Joe’s or Star Market locations in the Commonwealth, or in the luxury stores along Newbury Street in Boston ? Texas might bring a suit against Massachusetts if its residents are denied this “god given right”, and/or Massachusetts a suit against Texas for allowing dangerous behavior that endangers public safety and lives in its jurisdiction. Is this another reason among the increasing number in so many diverse cases why the arguments of Justices Alito and Thomas should be rejected? The word “unpersuaded” would a very mild one, or reaction from my perspective, if this (for now hypothetical but not unthinkable) situation were to arise. Or am I being unreasonably paranoid, even in this era of "shell game" prosecutions and justifiable presumptions of "irregularity" for government officials and departments, in thinking that this potential extension of the Second Amendment, in which the nationwide rule on access to, and the locations and circumstances in which an individual can bring an automatic weapon of lethality unimaginably greater than the muskets of 250 years ago would become based on the loosest or in practice almost absence of restrictions that any one state may decide to impose?
There's some similarity, at least in moral terms, between your hypothetical scenario regarding varying gun laws and the controversy about mifepristone being available by mail order in states that have outlawed abortion.
One justification in the latter case is that a medical practitioner in one state cannot know if a recipient of mifepristone in another state will use the drug unlawfully. For example, she could hypothetically take it to another state where abortion is legal before using it. Perhaps the same argument applies to your gun-law scenario, though I suppose that would depend on the particular gun laws.
"analogizing California’s and Washington’s (alleged) licensing practices to “one nation sending dangerous people into another.” (I’ll come back to the “facts” below.)" I did not see any comment on the "facts" as promised. While they are not necessary to the legal analysis of the case, I would have welcomed your comments. That something is amiss in California's licensing practices is suggested by your comment that the driver in question (whose immigrant status is irrelevant) could identify only one of four highway signs.
not necessarily. any system of licensing will have cases that slip through the cracks. there are inevitably ways to cheat and even without cheating occasionally people get lucky. so a single incident doesn't necessarily mean that anything is amiss
Perhaps,but an explanation of the "facts" was promised, and presumably would have had some bearing on that possibility.
yes, i agree!
Did I miss something, or did professor Vladeck not describe "the political and administrative channels Congress has already created to address these very issues" for the case of Florida's complaints about California and Washington?
The Arizona v. New Mexico case he cites said "The pending state-court action in New Mexico by the Arizona utilities involved in this case raises the same constitutional issues and provides an appropriate forum for litigating such issues." As far as I know, Florida has no pending state-court action and cannot bring one (at least if the dissenting Justices are accurate in that respect; I'm not a lawyer).
If the only argument is that certain state/state controversies don't deserve the Supreme Court's attention even if there's no other way to resolve the issue, it would help to have that more clearly stated and explained, at least for me.
And another on the list of why this racist majority has to be, when the country rights itself, chastised and its errors corrected. We had, post Civil War, a century of this kiind of racist rule. We do not need more proof of why the Court should be expanded to resemble the rainbow of the American people, instead of the white (incl. uncle-tom-white) of its currect catholic-conservative racist Six.