Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Brett Kimberlin has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking review of the Seventh Circuit’s denial of his motion to have his Speedway Bombing convictions set aside. The government filed its opposition to the petition earlier this month, and Kimberlin’s reply brief was filed yesterday.

I note that the counsel of record shown is no longer Neal Katyal, a partner at Hogan Lovells, but Jo-Ann Sagar, a senior associate with the firm.

Stay tuned.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

The government has filed its reply with the Supreme Court to Brett Kimberlin’s petition for a writ of certiorari. Kimberlin is seeking to have his Speedway Bombing convictions overturned via a writ of coram nobis. The government has asked the Supreme Court not waste everyone’s time hearing Kimberlin’s appeal.

Here’s the TL/DR:

Given the weakness of petitioner’s substantive claims and his lack of any justification for the delay in raising them, this case would be a poor vehicle to review the bounds of coram nobis relief. Even if petitioner could establish that a vacatur of only some of his convictions could satisfy the collateral consequences requirement, he still would not be entitled to the relief he seeks.

There are 83 entries in the Related Proceedings section, and that reminds me of this quote from Kimberlin himself—

I have filed over a hundred lawsuits and another one will be no sweat for me. On the other hand, it will cost you a lot of time and money.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

We’ve been following the progress of Brett Kimberlin’s attempt to have some of his Speedway Bombing convictions set aside. His latest effort failed in the U.S. District Court in Indianapolis and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Last month, he filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court, and the government’s response was due on 6 September. The government asked for an extension of time to respond until 11 October, and the Court granted that request yesterday.

Stay tuned

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Back in 2016, Brett Kimberlin tried to sue Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley to force the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court through the Senate. The District Court dismissed the suit sua sponte (on its own motion) because Kimberlin lacked standing to bring thee case. The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin appealed to the Fourth Circuit. Six years ago today, the TKPOTD contained a court paper Kimberlin filed as part of that appeal.

* * * * *

I almost posted this one as an I’m Not Making This Up, You Know

Self-important twit.

* * * * *

One of Kimberlin’s specious claims for standing in that case was that one of his lawfare cases might wind up being appealed to the Supreme Court and that he had a right for a full count of nine justices to hear his appeal. Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals agreed.

He now claims to have aa lawyer who is working on a petition for a writ of certiorari for the Seventh Circuit’s denial of an appeal related to the Speedway Bombing. While Merrick Garland didn’t make it to the Court, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett did, so if certiorari is granted, a full court will consider the case.

The Supreme Court Term

Given the Dobbs, Bruen, and West Virginia v. EPA decisions and orders in multiple cases such as Box v. Planned Parenthood and Bianchi v. Frosh, the Supreme Court appears to have decided that government by experts, including “expert” judges, must yield to democratic processes spelled out in the Constitution and that those experts should keep their noses out of the people’s personal business the Constitution shields from government intrusion.

I’ve heard it said that Conan best summarized the results thus far—

To crush your enemies. See them driven before you. And to hear the lamentations of their women—

although the Barbarian probably wasn’t a biologist.

Civil Rights Victories

This is from today’s Order List of the Supreme Court—

Bianchi v. Frosh is the challenge to Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban.

The Court also granted certiorari petitions on the New Jersey and California standard capacity magazine ban cases, vacated the lower courts’ judgments, and sent the cases back to the Third and Ninth Circuits, and the Court granted the certiorari petition the challenge to Hawaii’s carry permit system, vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment, returned that case to the circuit court.

Things are proceeding more quickly than I had foreseen.

Clarence Thomas Made My Day

We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for selfdefense.

NY State Rifle & Pistol Asso. v. Bruen, 20-843, Slip Op., 62, 63 (S. Ct.).

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Brett Kimberlin has carried through on his statement that he would appeal his recent loss in the Seventh Circuit to the Supreme Court. His counsel has asked for an extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, and that request has been granted.

Here the application that was filed—

Stay tuned.

 

What’s There and What’s Not

I’ve skimmed the document which Politico alleges to be a draft decision by Justice Alito striking down Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It seems to me the gist of his argument is that the Supreme Court exceeded its authority by inventing a right that had no foundation in either the Constitution or American common law or our civil traditions. Therefore, regulation of abortion is a matter for each state.

I’m not surprised by that reasoning. I hope the Court’s final ruling goes that way.

This leads me wonder what the reasoning in the pending New York State Rifle & Pistol Association case will be. That case deals with a state’s regulation of a right explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights, a right the Court has previously ruled is bound on the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Will the justices find some new extra-Constitutional doctrine that will allow states to continue to suppress an enumerated right? Or will they tell the states that Second Amendment is fully applicable nationwide?

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

The TKPOTD for six years ago today dealt with my ability to foreseen upcoming events.

* * * * *

popcorn4bkOK. Some of the Gentle Readers are wondering, “Did Hoge really foresee that LOLsuit The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin filed against Senators McConnell and Grassley?” The truthful answer is yes and no. Yes, I foresaw that Kimberlin was likely to do something amazingly bold but mind-bogglingly stupid. No, I didn’t foresee Congress as his target. OTOH, he’s sued Senator Orin Hatch several years ago and Madeleine Albright when she was Secretary of State, so I’m not surprised by the grandiosity of his really futile and stupid gesture.

Some days, all one has to do is sit back, watch, and wait for the mistake to be made.

* * * * *

Some days, things proceed better than I have foreseen.

Today at The Supremes

I listened to the oral argument in the OSHA mandate cases today. I’m in a bit of a quandary about how to comment. (Before I go any further, let me remind the Gentle Reader that I am not a lawyer; I’m an engineer, and I’m not your engineer.) As multiple commentators have pointed out, Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan made several factual statement that were simply wrong. It is possible for vaccinated individuals to catch and spread covid. There aren’t now—nor has there be across the entire pandemic—100,000 acute pediatric cases. The omicron variant is not deadlier than the delta.

I suppose it is possible that being kept in a bubble by handler/clerks could explain a certain level of ignorance, but when the cat’s so far out of the bag even outlets such as NPR are having to begin truthful reporting, it’s hared to imagine those justice really believe what they were saying.

If they do believe what they said, that’s kinda scary.

If they don’t believe it and said it anyway, that’s even scarier.

UPDATE—Typo corrected.

A Civil Rights Case Appealed to the Supreme Court

Maryland has a patently unconstitutional ban of certain firearms. A panel of the Fourth Circuit struck down the Maryland ban, but a en banc decision reversed the panel, so the law is still on the books.

A petition for a writ of certiorari has been filed with the Supreme Court.

That’s Gonna Leave a Mark

Bench slaps are fairly rare in Supreme Court decisions, and it’s almost unheard of for one to be directed at a fellow justice. Justice Gorsuch wrote this in the majority opinion in Whole Women’s Health v. Texas.He was joined by Justices Kavanaugh, Barrett, and (for this part of the opinion) Thomas.

The Left’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week

Monday was a bit of a rocky start with the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments about challenges to the Texas law that allows citizens to bring lawsuits against persons who perform abortions. Based on the justices’ questions, the case isn’t a slam dunk for either side. A win for the Left isn’t a gimme.

Tuesday was election day. The Democrats lost bigly in Virginia, and were reduced to referring to the first black woman to win state-wide office as a “white supremacist.” They lost a special election in Texas in a heavily Latino legislative district. Most stunning, they barely able to keep the vote within the margin of theft in New Jersey.

Wednesday, oral arguments in the challenge to the New York handgun permitting system were heard by the Supreme Court. Most commentators are projecting a 6 to 3 decision vindicating the petitioners’ Second Amendment rights. (I’m betting on 5 to 4.)

Thursday, the first actual arrest was made in the Russia Collusion Hoax case. The supporting indictment filed by Special Prosecutor John Durham paints a picture of collusion by the Clinton campaign with Russians.

Friday, was the day that Nancy Pelosi was going give Joe Xiden a win by passing his more-than-a-trillion dollar “infrastructure” bill. She failed to do so, and also failed to move the legislation for the Build Back Better scam either.

And that’s just some of what went right this week.

UPDATE—Well, well, well … Mrs. Pelosi did move some legislation. She did get the Senate’s version of the infrastructure bill through 228 to 206 (7 not voting). 13 Republicans voted for the bill: Katko, Bacon, Van Drew, Young, Upton, Kinzinger, Gonzalez, Fitzpatrick, Reed, Gabarino, Malliotakis, McKinley, and Smith of New Jersey. Pelosi couldn’t have pulled this off without that Republican support. It will be interesting to see how many of these congresscritters are reelected.

An Interesting Question

During the oral argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen this morning, Chief Justice Roberts asked the Solicitor General of New York, “Well how many muggings take place in the forest?”

He asked the question as part of an exchange with the Solicitor General in which she was trying to justify the suppression of Second Amendment rights in populated areas.

Not Just Clueless But Lawless Too

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court has granted the application to vacate the stay in enforcing the lower court’s order terminating the CDC’s eviction moratorium. (Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs.)

In a per curium order the Court states:

It is indisputable that the public has a strong interest in combating the spread of the COVID–19 Delta variant. But our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends. Cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 582, 585–586 (1952) (concluding that even the Government’s belief that its action “was necessary to avert a national catastrophe” could not overcome a lack of congressional authorization). It is up to Congress, not the CDC, to decide whether the public interest merits further action here.

***

If a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must specifically authorize it. The application to vacate stay presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is granted.

So ordered.

The three dissenters were Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Not Just Clueless But Lawless Too

The Supreme Court has denied a request for a stay pending appeal of the injunction requiring the Xiden Administration to reimplement the remain-in-Mexico requirement for asylum seekers entering the country at the southern border. A U.S. District Court found that the Xiden Administration broke law in promulgating its preferred policy. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s finding.

A Supreme Bench Slap

The Supreme Court has struck down California’s covid regulations limiting home Bible studies and prayer meetings. The per curium opinion closes with these words—

This is the fifth time the Court has summarily rejected the Ninth Circuit’s analysis of California’s COVID restrictions on religious exercise. … And historically, strict scrutiny requires the State to further “interests of the highest order” by means “narrowly tailored in pursuit of those interests.” Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 546 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). That standard “is not watered down”; it “really means what it says.”

The decision was 5-4, with Roberts in the minority.

Texas Replies

Texas has filed a reply to the oppositions filed by Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia.

UPDATE—The Texas reply concludes—

Although Defendant States dispute that the Court should hear this action in its discretion and dispute the laws and facts, Defendant States offer no reason against deciding this action summarily if the Court rules for Texas on the facts and law.

UPDATE 2—Texas has also filed a reply in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction.

UPDATE 3—126 Congresscritters file in support of the Texas motion for a preliminary injunction.