Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

  In Isabellas County, Michigan, the Pung family lost its ranch style home due to a mere $2,242 in disputed taxes.  The country government sold the place for $76K at a public auction. The buyer then flipped it for $195,000.  I'm a recovering anarcho-capitalist, so I will try not to go on too much of a bender about how much this sucks.  But boy is the world of property taxation and enforcement offering up a delicious cuba libre to someone who is trying to get with the twelve steps, here!!! In May 2023, U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Tyler v. Hennepin County that home equity theft is unconstitutional. The Court determined that seizing excess value over a tax debt violates the fifth amendment's taking clause.   So was Pung simply a straightforward application of Tyler ? No such luck.  Lower courts essentially gave the Pungs the difference between the tax debt and the public auction value. But the Pungs asked the Supreme Court to affirm that (...

Prelude: for those who were paying close attention to my haiku last week: yes, I did have the procedure done and, yes, things turned out well.  There is nothing nasty growing inside my butt. Prelude complete.  Anyway: I don't want to say much here about the ROYAL CARRIBEAN case issued by the US Supreme Court last week, in part because I may have something to say about it two months from now, as part of my annual round-up of  all things SCOTUS.  I'll only for today note that the case has Justice Thomas writing for the court, as one of an eight-member majority thereof, with Justice Kagan the sole standout.    And my only point is to ask a question. Does anyone know of another decision within the last couple of years that came down just that way?  In many politically sensitive cases, one gets a 6-3 lineup.  Sometimes the split consists of appointees of Presidents of the Republican Party versus those of Presidents of the Democratic Party, as in LOUISI...

  I indicated in a late January post in this blog what I thought the Supreme Court was going to do about tariffs.  I said that it would likely affirm the decisions in the courts below striking down the tariffs, but that as to remedy it would find a way to allow the administration to avoid rebates.  I was right as to the questioning of the permissibility of the sweeping tariff powers the President sought to assign to himself here. I was wrong as to remedy.  As you surely all know by now, the Supreme Court by a 6-3 reading upheld one of the central pillars of our constitutional system, the unique role of the legislature in matters of taxation. And noted the obvious point that tariffs ARE taxation.  What did it say about remedy? Nothing, really. It left the matter open for further litigation, with the implication (I submit) that the importers who have been paying these charges since "Liberation Day" have a claim. The litigation is already underway. THAT I did not e...

 As the new year rolled in, many scholars and observers of the Supreme Court expected a quick opinion on the Trump tariff case. The courts below have held that the president does NOT have the authority he is claiming here. The oral arguments did not seem to advance the administration's cause.  So: if there is to be a decision striking down the tariffs, AND that decision would have complicated consequences in terms of working out the rebates, THEN it stands to reason SCOTUS will want to get the deed done quickly, lessening the complication.  The constant payment of these tariffs constitutes a tick-tick-tick that a court contemplating such a decision may want to shorten.  Yet as of this writing -- no tariff decision.  January's opinion days have come and gone, with no opinion on this subject.  Some are whispering that perhaps the outcome is not so clear-cut -- perhaps a court so much molded by President Trump will find a way to accommodate him.  I disagr...

  Welcome. It is that time of year again: time for this blog's four-part discussion of the just-concluded US Supreme Court session.  As has been my habit, there will be four parts to this. Today, I will focus on one outstanding case, after some introductory observations. Tomorrow, I will look to developments this year in the jurisprudence of capital punishment.  Thursday, we will discuss what I think of as quintessentially Trump-era cases and controversies. These include tariffs and the founders' reservation of the "power of the purse" to the legislature. The Trump-distinctive posting will also address the Alien Enemies Act and the way it has been brought out of a deep archive to remake immigration policy.  Finally, Friday, we will get to some evergreen controversies such as specific interpretations/applications of the Americans With Disabilities Act and efforts at imposing civil liability on gun manufacturers. I will also address Blom Bank , an anti-terrorism case t...

Not only is Richard Glossip still alive, but he will receive a new trial, a new opportunity to establish the reasonableness of doubt about his guilt.  A really ugly injustice has been done here already, by virtue of the very fact that such celebration is necessary.  But it is an ugliness that may avoid a final consummation now.  Glossip is alive because the US Supreme Court, more than a year ago now, agreed to hear his case. You can enter his name in the search engine to this blog if you want to find a fuller explanation. Or, go to other sources of news if you believe that there are other sources.   https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/02/supreme-court-grants-richard-glossip-new-trial-in-capital-case/     In January 1997 (yes, more than 28 years ago, and days before the second inaugural of President Clinton) and man called Barry Van Treese beat Justin Sneed to death with a baseball bat. In order to avoid the death penalty, Sneed testified that Glossip ...

Newsweek offers the following confusing prose, about a case out of Arizona. Italics added.  " The court [SCOTUS] issued an order related to a case raised by the  Republican  National Committee asking the justices to block a lower-court order that blocked enforcement of a 2022 law that would bar registered voters who have not previously provided proof of citizenship from voting in presidential elections, or by mail in any federal elections." The order declined to do so. (Subject to a qualification I'll get to later.) All these negative signs. It's algebra. Two negative signs is a positive number.  Three negative signs is a negative again. Four negative signs (counting now the underlying law as the first negative) give us a positive result again. The people whose ability to vote was contested, CAN vote.  The law says certain people can't vote. A lower court said to Arizona "don't enforce that!" So those people can vote.  The state asked the Justices...

On June 6, 2024 the US Supreme Court handed down its decision in Connelly v. Internal Revenue Service . This was an estate-tax issue arising in the context of closely-held corporations. Since that is already putting several of my readers to sleep, I will say only that the issue concerned a trick that controlling families sometimes use to retain their control of the corporation from one generation to the next. Let's ignore the particulars of that trick. The point is: SCOTUS held unanimously against said trick. It is a decision that will likely lead in at least some instances to some dilution of the control of certain rich and powerful families over small-but-wealth-packed corporations.  So SCOTUS ruled (1) in favor of the IRS and (2) against certain rich powerful families (3)  Unanimously (4) in an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas.  Who appointed these damned libs anyway?  I have posted David Hume's image here to suggest that the above cited decision may be ...

Court put on a bit of a show over the mifepristone litigation. Or, at least, the oral arguments were so widely and intensely followed it smelled a bit like a Barnum production.  There is much that one might say about this dispute.  But this is the first time you will have seen anything about it in this humble blog, so for today I will just stick to some of the basics.  Mifepristone is part of the standard medicinal protocol for  early-term abortions. Early here means within 70 days of a pregnant woman's last menstrual period. When it was first introduced in the United States the usual term was RU 486, and I am not sure when that more resonant term [it always sounds like a question, to be followed by "well, ARE YOU???"] lost favor. Was RU 486 a brand name?  The percentage of abortions in the US that are medicinal rather than surgical has increased steadily since the approval of mifepristione here at the turn of the millennium. According to the CDC numbers, only ...

  Richard Glossip still alive?  I heard about his case months ago, and only now decided to check up on him. The Glossip case is the one that led a state rep in Oklahoma, Kevin McDugle, to promise to "fight to end the death penalty if Glossip dies." Given how hard it has proven to be to achieve any other result, shouldn't McDugle reach that conclusion for himself anyway?  Does he need the sacrifice? Hmmm. Anyway, after some web searching, I have to say that appears he is still alive.  Either that or he died of natural causes on death row and the fact has been underreported.  On Jan. 22, the Supreme Court granted cert on Glossip's claims to actual innocence and whether "due process of law requires reversal ... where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the State no longer seeks to defend it."    In terms of timing, my guess is that the Court hears arguments early next term, so that a decision won't come down until early 2025.   Glos...

In the context of our understanding of the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the October 2021 term was BIG NEWS. Just to warm up, let's quote this amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.   I'd like to begin by calling your attention to those last two phrases. The people have the right peacefully to assemble, and to petition the government (which includes the judiciary) for a redress of grievances.  After this term was over, there were lots of people who wished to peacefully assemble in the proximity of Justices' residences. Their grievance was their dissatisfaction with the Dobbs case we discussed in the first of these posts. It is safe to say that they want a redress of their grievance in one manner or anot...

At some time next month I will offer you my usual annual reflections on this Supreme Court term.  I make this note in advance, about a case SCOTUS has decided NOT to hear.  On June 21, the Supreme Court declined to take up the case of MONSANTO v. HARDEMAN.   In this matter a Californian man named Edwin Hardeman alleged RoundUp, a Monsanto product, had caused his cancer.  Hardeman received an award from a federal district court, applying California state law, of $25 million after a jury trial. But Monsanto has appealed, claiming that the matter is preempted by federal law, and the US EPA has concluded that the herbicide does not pose "any reasonable risk to man or the environment." Monsanto appealed, and the 9th Circuit held for plaintiff.  The US, under Trump, sought to intervene and take Monsanto's side before SCOTUS. The government, under Biden, has indicated that it takes Hardeman's view and wants the award to stand.  SCOTUS has decided not to hear ...

 I made the case in a post here on May 31 that reality wasn't cooperating with our very human desire for nice story lines.  As part of the evidence, I referenced the May 24 Republican primary in Pennsylvania, for the nomination for the US Senate, in which Kathy Barnette, the underdog surprise candidate (THAT is always a nice storyline), faded into relative insignificance at almost the moment the actual counting of ballots began.  Right around the time I wrote that post, the issue has narrowed down to this: would undated signed mail-in ballots be counted? There was nothing fraudulent in the wind: some voters simply forgot to fill out the date line on the outside envelope.  Had those votes been counted, it seems, McCormick might have won. Without those ballots, Oz had his win/  But let's back up. In the final stretch of the campaign, Mehmet Oz remained a favorite almost entirely on the strength of Trump's endorsement. THAT suggested a storyline (Trump still has gr...

  Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Dunn said that he did not want to be vaccinated against Covid-19 for religious reasons. He did not identify a specific religion whose belief system leads him to this. But let us suppose it is Dunnism, and he is the Pope of it. He naturally doesn't want to be forced to excommunicate himself.   Six Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court said, "tough luck, soldier, you're in a chain of command." the other three --  Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch -- said that Dunn should NOT be relieved of his command for this reason. His religious rights should trump the chain of command.  (And yes, I know I'm using the word 'trump' there as a verb and that one could interpret that punningly as a reference to the guy who appointed Gorsuch. Grow up, folks. I use "trumpet" for such purposes. And you can spell it if you like with a silent "s" in front.)  What I would like to point out, though, is that in 2022 when on...

Another term of the US Supreme Court has come and gone and, as I have for years, I will encapsulate it in this blog. Welcome to the discussion of this and the following three posts.  This term began in the midst  of the Presidential election campaign, last October, only two weeks after the demise of Justice Ginsburg, only one week after the confirmation of her successor, Amy Coney Barrett. This was an extraordinary political context. It was almost as if the Republican leadership in the US Senate, which four years before had loudly announced its devotion to the principle that the Senate should not deliberate on a Supreme Court vacancy during an election year,  regardless of who might be helped or hurt by that deliberation ("keep this tape"!), had been acting hypocritically and opportunistically in making those solemn avowals.  Ah, what an unfortunate appearance.  Also, we saw that this Supreme Court, with Justice Barrett on board, steadfastly refused to be drawn ...