We don't need no stinkin' Checks and Balances!

[yendi]

Today's slouch towards Bethlehem (which was so underreported in the press that news.google.com doesn't even acknowledge it):

The Supreme Crock Court has refused to hear the Jesus Castillo Texas Obscenity case. This is the case where a man was convicted of selling an adult comic to adults, purely on the basis of the argument that comics must be for kids. Yes, that was the "logic" used in TX, and upheld by a jury of twelve of the stupidest people alive. And anyone sitting there and thinking that this isn't setting a nasty precedent is out of their gourd. The same standard that allows a medium like comics to be declared "kids-only" will just as easily allow animation to be declared kids-only (welcome to prison, Stan "Stripperella" Lee). And it won't just affect fringe comics. If MiracleMan ever gets back into print, I don't doubt they'll put out an APB on Alan Moore and forbid him from returning to the US for his depictions of (*gasp*) a woman giving birth, in explicit detail. Not to mention every creator for the Vertigo line (wonder if Neil and Garth are regretting emigrating).

Beware of anyone who says that a law is being passed "for the children." That's a code that signals that they actually want to fuck you up the ass with a garden rake. Which, come to think of it, is what the Texas prosecutor and his pet jury deserve.

Comments

[dwivian]

Remember, any single justice can elect to hear the case, so if the most liberal judge on the panel thinks the appeal has no merit, that's saying something...

You have to wonder, though, why.....

[yendi]

I was actually under the impression that any one could bring it to the court, but then four Justices had to agree to hear it. Which still makes it a disappointment (given the liberal bent of some Justices, and the libertarian bent of others).

[dwivian]

I just read all the rules of the court (didn't know about the colored photocopy rules...weird) and couldn't find anything about the number required...

There are petitions to individual justices, and petitions to the court, and each kind of petition has different procedures, only a few of which made any sense.

My civics studies tell me just one justice can put it on the docket, but since you remember differently, I'm stuck as to how to resolve the issue. I'm all about knowledge and truth, and I can't find a ready source of either on this matter. *HARUMPH*

Anyone out there got a link or better knowledge?

[blueingenue.livejournal.com]

It's four. I attended an informative lecture at the Supreme Court on my trip to DC last month. That was one of the points mentioned in the lecture.

Yes, you can attend half-hour lectures sitting in the actual courtroom on a walk-in basis. When we went there, we didn't even know a lecture was offered until the guards mentioned it was about to start. Oddly, the building had the most sensitive metal detector and the most easy-going guards.

[dwivian]

Then I stand corrected, and acknowledge my error.

But, there are four liberal judges... why didn't they take up this cause? What's wrong about it that we don't see?

[blueingenue.livejournal.com]

The issue at hand is that it was upheld that people of a community should be able to decide the standard of decency within their own community.

Of course, I think the people of that community are ignorant prigs, and the prosecutors played on that.

There are four liberal judges, but are there five? Perhaps the liberal judges don't want to force a case to be heard that might just set a conservative precedent at the highest level.

[dwivian]

VERY good point.... but, isn't a failure to review setting the same precedent? It's effectively the law of the region/land in that it wasn't contested at the highest level, and that is a precedent of a type, yes?

I wish I knew more how the appelate process works....

[blueingenue.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's a precedent. Although it is regionally handed down, I believe it can be cited to support cases outside the region (not sure on that, though.) However, citing the District precedent will not carry the same definitive weight as a Supreme Court ruling.

I think the objective of Justices (assuming they have an agenda), is to hear the cases that will not only be "winnable", but make the most definitive and influential statement on a given topic.

Thus far, I see this as more of a "niche" issue, and therefore perhaps not the strongest test case.

In the lecture, I also learned the Court hears cases for only half a day, during only half a week, during only half a month, during only half a year. They are notoriously selective.

If the issue merits future scrutiny, eventually a similar but more widely applicable test case will make its way to the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, I can avoid the problem by not moving to Texas. I wasn't planning to, anyway.

[dwivian]

You're a dream! Thanks so much for helping me out and giving us all a great civics lesson!

Good points, and I appreciate your comments. More to ponder, I guess.

[sff-corgi.livejournal.com]

The 'coloured photocopy rules'??

[dwivian]

Yeah....as you make photocopies, you have to provide a colored cover corresponding to the type of filing you are making....

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint and Brief in Support, Jurisdictional Statement, and a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ all have a white cover.

Brief in Opposition, Brief in Opposition to Motion for Leave to File an Original Action, Motion to Dismiss or Affirm, Brief in Opposition to Mandamus or Prohibition, and the Response to a Petition for Habeas Corpus are orange.

There is also tan, light blue, light red, yellow, cream, and dark green.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

I can't find the denial of cert anywhere online... *sigh* I'm beginning to wonder just how far this censorship goes....

[dwivian]

It'd be on the Supreme's Web Site for sure, right?

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

No.

That's what's got me just a teeny bit scared.

[auryn29a.livejournal.com]

*grumble*

[sistermaryeris.livejournal.com]

That's Texas for you. Full of morons. I can attest to it, since that is where I live. I gotta' get out of here!!

[dwivian]

Here's a way to have laws for the children....

Gary Coleman for governor of California.