Top Supreme Court Cases in 2019-2020 [Part 2/2] | The Judicial Review

Um… Where was I? Oh, yeah. Last time, we reviewed some past and upcoming
cases on the rights of non-cis heteronormative people in the workplace, mental health in
the legal system, the DREAMers, and racism in corporate media management. Because apparently
that wasn’t enough, today we’ll cover more cases that the Supreme Court will rule
on in the coming months, and how and why they are important in a time when the political
winds are escalating into a seriously dangerous political Sharknado against a wide variety
of social liberties. Are you ready kids? (Sorry… that.. that
was bad Can we just -can we just move past that? I’d appreciate that a lot.)
We already went over the majority of the very impactful cases that’ll take place before
the end of the Gregorian year, so most of today’s talk will focus on cases set for
2020. There’s just one more super relevant 2019 case to discuss, and this is a big one
-and I mean, a big one. As in, huge. As in, colossal. As in, gargantuan -this is getting
old. This case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York. Yuuup, we’re
going there. As you may have guessed, the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association
is a pro-gun group associated with the National Rifle Association -in other words, terrorist
sympathizers. The case centers on a New York City law prohibiting the carrying of firearms
without a license. Civilians in NYC could get two types of licenses, a carry license
for people who keep guns in public and a premises license for people who keep their guns at
home. The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, in response, filed a lawsuit claiming that
the law was an unconstitutional infringement on Second Amendment rights, the Commerce Clause,
and the right to travel. This is a big case because it’s the first
gun-control case to get to the Supreme Court in almost a decade. The last huge gun-control
ruling was D.C. v. Heller in 2008, where the Supreme Court employed some olympic-level
mental gymnastics to find that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to
own firearms regardless of whether one is part of a well-regulated militia or not. Why
the Court waited for so long to take a gun rights case is open to speculation, but if
I were to guess I’d say they’d been waiting for a pro-gun justice, someone who wouldn’t
flinch in protecting the American people’s God-given right to wield killing machines
unrestricted by the nanny state. And, wouldn’t you know it, Brett Kavanaugh is a Supreme
Court justice now, the man who in 2011 wrote that AR-15’s are a common-use item and,
therefore, not something the government can regulate. Because freedom, I guess.
Wary of this, gun-control advocates in New York City fought to get the law repealed.
They thought that if there was no law, there would be no case. They were successful in
eliminating the law, but, well, the case is still on. That’s why we’re talking about
it, after all. Even though there is no law anymore, the New York State Rifle & Pistol
Association continued pushing for a Court hearing, arguing that the issue of whether
local jurisdictions can do that remains unresolved. And this is the part where I’m like “what
did you expect?” They’ve been raging about this just like other uberconservative groups
are rabid about pretty much everything else, and no capitulation has ever slowed them down
in the least. If anything, capitulating makes them even more rabid, more extreme, but for
some reason liberals keep deluding themselves into thinking that if they portray themselves
as harmless enough, there’ll come a day when everyone holds hands and sings happy
songs together. *Sigh* I’m ranting, I know. This dynamic is so frustrating.
I do not want to downplay how repressive licencing laws are for minority groups, however. Groups
like the National African American Gun Association, for instance, also oppose the law, and there
is a real conversation to be had about the subjugation of certain peoples by the government
such as what African Americans have been living and continue to live in the Southern states
-in the North as well, for sure; again, it’s a complex issue that we gotta address like
adults. But I also want to be clear that in an age when gun violence is a persistent and
significant threat in daily life in the U.S., the absolute last thing we need is to let
the narrative be shaped by a bunch of Rambo wannabes who keep gun photo albums to masturbate
to. We will have more cases in 2020, though they
have not been assigned a date as of the making of this video. Two of them stood out to me,
so I’ll cover them anyway. The first one is June Medical Services v.
Gee, another abortion case in a line of cases that haven’t formally abolished Roe v. Wade
but that have slowly and steadily weakened it to such an extent that it might as well
be practically dead, even if it isn’t so on paper. The case was brought up due to a
Louisiana law requiring abortion doctors to “have active admitting privileges at a hospital
that is located not further than thirty miles from the location at which the abortion is
performed or induced.” ‘Why thirty miles?,’ you may ask. Well,
if you’re versed in numerology, you’ll know that the number 30 can be broken down
into 3 and 0, which add up to just 3, the number at the root of creativity, self-expression,
and completion. If you’ve heard of this thing called “the Christian god,” you’ll
remember that it is composed by the Holy Trinity -again, the number 3. Maybe religion and spirituality
is not your thing, but even the Hegelian dialectic explains that, one, the thesis, and two, the
antithesis, reach a climactic resolution at three, the synthesis, and all of these are
very important considerations when regulating women’s bodies.
There’s also a theory that Louisiana doesn’t have many hospitals that can grant admitting
privileges, let alone within thirty miles of whoever needs these services, thus making
it virtually impossible for doctors to perform abortions at all or in extremely few cases,
if you could believe that kind of stuff. If you feel like we’ve already been through
this before, don’t worry, you didn’t fall into a wormhole transporting you to the past.
Unless you did and I’m just making assumptions here, and you know what they say about assuming…
This is awkward now… I’m sorry. The thing is that this case is nearly identical to Whole
Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, decided in 2016. The only major difference is that Whole
Woman’s Health reviewed a Texas law whereas June Medical Services concerns a Louisiana
law, but the laws themselves are pretty much the same. Back then, the Supreme Court struck
down the Texas law, so why would Louisiana do the same thing again if we already said
it was bad? Well, just like with the gun case, Brett Kavanaugh
is now there to screw things up. The deciding vote in the 2016 case was cast by former Justice
Robert Kennedy in support of the doctors. But now that Kennedy is out and Kavanaugh
is in, the pro-fetus crowd wants the question to be reconsidered in their favor. After all,
Brett Kavanaugh of all people has such a high regard for the ladies, does he not?
I honestly believe that the whole discussion about whether Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned
is very misguided. There is wide support for Roe, so it wouldn’t be a smart political
move to do away with it, especially in an election year. I don’t know if Roe will
be repealed later in the future, but I do know that, in the meantime, the Court has
been bleeding Roe dry without outright overturning it. And that’s the thing we should be focusing
on instead; Roe is getting killed by a thousand cuts, and this case is one in a line of cases
decided to do just that. The last case I want to talk about today is
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, also set for some time in 2020. This one is
going to be a church-and-state case, and based on how the Court has been treating Christian
conservatives in recent years, I think we can get a pretty good idea of how it’s all
gonna go down. The case in question centers on a Montana program offering tax credits
to individuals and businesses who donate to private nonprofit scholarship organizations.
Excluded from this program, however, are religious schools, since the contrary would basically
amount to public funding of religious education and, you know, there’s this whole thing
called the First Amendment which kinda forbids government advancement of religion. Look it
up, it’s actually pretty neat. But, as they have done, the religious Right
took to the courts to argue that their exclusion from the program is an unconstitutional violation
of their right to free exercise of religion. Because, apparently, not getting money for
a private school keeps them from freely exercising their faith, certainly a repressive practice
only conceivable by a militantly anti-theist government that seeks to forcefully erase
Christianity from its citizens’ private lives, because that makes total sense.
Never mind the fact that churches count as charities and are generally exempt from paying
federal, state, and local taxes. Also ignore the fact that Christian nationalists are reshaping
state legislatures nationwide and actively hijacking the courts system to conflate freedom
from totalitarian repression with the expansive embrace of Christianity as a foundation of
U.S. law. And definitely do not look too hard into the fact that the Christian plaintiffs
in this case can and do worship any way they want, and their ability to do so has never
been at risk, and this is all basically a giant temper tantrum to get the government
to subsidize their religious schools by invoking the First Amendment even though that’s literally
the opposite of what the First Amendment explicitly allows for, but we’re in a time when alternative
facts are validly used to justify the conservative takeover of government, so… yeah…
In preparing for this episode, I came across some analyses that I think are worth mentioning.
NPR correspondent Nina Totenberg, for instance, reports that we are likely to see some cases,
quote, “testing the power of Congress to get information from the executive branch
and elsewhere.” This is due to the impeachment inquiry currently taking place, the one the
Trump administration already said it will not comply with. If Congress and the White
House reach an impasse, we’ll have our first constitutional crisis since Watergate, except
Nixon at least had the decency to resign whereas the Covfefe in Chief has the level of self-awareness
of an angry bird and will probably want to tear everything down with him as he falls.
If this happens, it’ll be the Court’s duty to restore the balance in the body politic
and, as with some of the other stuff we discussed earlier, this will be especially significant
in an election year. And speaking of the election, do you like
the electoral college? If your answer was ‘yes,’ you’re wrong. This racist and
anti-democratic institution has already granted the presidency to two conservative trainwrecks
in the past couple of decades, and there is literally no reason to keep it anymore. The
reason I’m bringing this up is that the U.S. Court for the Tenth Circuit ruled in
August that members of the electoral college can vote for whomever they darn well please,
regardless of which candidate actually won their respective states. The judges in this
case resorted to, surprise, surprise, an originalist reading of the Constitution, arguing that
this is what the Founding Fathers intended when they structured our government more than
a century before we started pooping inside our homes.
This case, formally known as Baca v. Colorado Department of State, is expected to be reviewed
by the Supreme Court in June 2020, just in time for the electoral college to screw us
over once again. Further, the Washington Post took a break
from sacrificing human babies to appease their god, Jeff Bezos, to mention some more issues
that are likely to make it to the high court sometime in 2020. Included among these are
more cases having to with supposed religious freedom (code for Christian supremacy, tbh)
and ObamaCare. They add their two cents to the impeachment discussion by reporting that
lawsuits seeking the president’s tax returns and claiming emoluments violations are already
underway, and will possibly make it to the Supreme Court in due time.
This coming year might just be the most political one for the Supreme Court in a very long time,
perhaps in living memory, if not ever. There are plenty of other cases coming that I didn’t
get to include here for several reasons, mostly due to timing, that revolve around a myriad
other issues, from cruel and unusual punishment to climate change and gerrymandering. Many
liberties that we have been taking for granted since the Civil Rights era may be back on
the table and, let’s be upfront, they may be taken away from us. Whether this will serve
as a catalyst for greater picture mobilization is something for which I don’t have an answer,
but we must not, rather, we cannot, allow the erosion of these liberties, which means
that if there ever was a time to be vigilant of the Supreme Court and prepared to react
to whatever they rule, this year is it. I know it sounds overwhelming, I feel trepidation
just talking about this, and I cannot imagine what it will be like to be part of a defense
coalition against the bigotry of the ruling class. But we don’t have much of an option
anymore, so I sincerely urge you to take what we talked about today and use it in the meat
space, talk about it with others around you, join politically oriented organizations -it
doesn’t have to be a party or a nonprofit, just whatever’s close to you that will allow
you to join the efforts to steer the course of our nation for the better, because a dark
time is falling upon us and only we can keep the fire burning, but we have to, have to,
go out and do it. That’s all I have for today. I just wanted
to lay out what to expect in the coming months, but I’ll definitely go into more detail
on each of these cases as they come. If you liked this and want to stay up to date with
my content, leave a like and consider subscribing to my channel. I have a Patreon and a Ko-fi
if you want to lend me a hand as I continue to make these videos to keep y’all informed
on this. Also remember to comment and share to make the YouTube robot show my stuff out
there. Thank you again for your time and patience.
I hope you all have a great time, and I will see you back here in the next one.

4 Responses

  1. Jackie Fox says:

    The point you were making around 4:30 to 5 minutes reminded me of this video, Which is an interview of Killer Mike done right after his NRA interview

  2. Jackie Fox says:

    Liked shared and commented let's hope the robots do their thing

  3. Camazotz says:

    Hey homie please hit me up I'd love to interview you and signal boost your channel on Unidos [email protected]

  4. Mori KTSB says:

    your avatar is so cute

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *