As I’ve said many times here before, I’m a big fan of Doug Muder, who writes a weekly packet of columns called the Weekly Sift, that comes out every Monday that he’s not vacationing. (You can find it down at the very bottom of our somewhat neglected blogroll on the right margin of your screen.) He published something today that was, once again, clearer than anything else I’ve seen in any media about how a recently decided Second Amendment case comported, more or less, with the principles of “originalism,” which now govern our Supreme Court jurisprudence, though often honored in the breach. It’s called “The Limits of Originalism.” I’ll give you a little fair use taste to get you through this likely hellish last week of the SCOTUS term.

[The Supreme Court] decided that Congress does have the right to pass laws that take guns away from domestic abusers who are under restraining orders. Or, looking at it from the other side of the gun, men who have been judged by a court to pose a credible threat to their intimate partners do not have an absolute right to bear arms.
Good job, justices. With only one dissent (corrupt Clarence Thomas) they made the right call. Good for them. But why were they having that conversation to begin with? Why did anyone think that in one of the most obvious potential-murder situations imaginable [1], our legal system is banned from offering a woman even the simplest kind of protection?
In particular, why did anyone think it might be unconstitutional to disarm Zackey Rahimi, who perfectly exemplifies why domestic abuse laws exist? Rahimi didn’t just threaten the estranged mother of his child with a gun and then violate the restraining order she got for her own (and her child’s) protection, he also was involved in several other shooting incidents, some related to his personal anger-control issues and others stemming from his professional role as a drug dealer.
That reasoning is the judicial philosophy known as “originalism” which means something like — read the story why I have to equivocate there, because not even the Court seems to agree about what it really means and implies — we are bound by the understanding of the framers of a constitutional provision at the time that it was drafted, based upon the plain meaning of the text at that time. (That time is, mostly, 1789 to 1793 and then from 1865 to 1870. It’s their say what the Constitution means, preserved in amber — except now the court is saying “well, definitely NOT ‘preserved in amber, but …” and we will spend the next several years waiting to see how they finish that sentence.
Under Fair Use, I believe that I can claim one more paragraph from the piece in order to induce you to visit, so I’d better make it a good one! Oh, this looks good! And I can quote from Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence for free!
Given the fact that the law at the founding was more likely to protect husbands who abused their spouses than offer some measure of accountability, see, e.g., R. Siegel, “The Rule of Love”: Wife Beating as Prerogative and Privacy, 105 Yale L. J. 2117, 2154–2170 (1996), it is no surprise that that generation did not have an equivalent to [the law Rahimi has challenged]. Under the dissent’s [i.e. Thomas’] approach, the legislatures of today would be limited not by a distant generation’s determination that such a law was unconstitutional, but by a distant generation’s failure to consider that such a law might be necessary. History has a role to play in Second Amendment analysis, but a rigid adherence to history, (particularly history predating the inclusion of women and people of color as full members of the polity), impoverishes constitutional interpretation and hamstrings our democracy.
Putting her point more bluntly: When the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, women were not really people, and wives in particular were subject to the whims of their husbands in ways we no longer accept. So you’re not going to find much in the way of domestic-violence legislation from that era, much less laws disarming domestic abusers. But that’s because the founding generation just didn’t think domestic violence was a problem worthy of government action, not necessarily because they endorsed the right of dangerous people to be armed.
And … scene! If you want to understand why the current Supreme Court majority and its legal philosophy is full of (magic) beans, this is a pretty good place to start!
This is your “I forgot that we’ve needed an” Open Thread. You can talk about the SCOTUS or anything else you’d like, within reasonably bounds of decorum and discretion. (As a nod to the Court, this week I’m leaving out the Dignity.)
Rumor on the street is oc BoS has or will defund Groundswell OC. Anyone have any info re this??
You mean what was formerly known as the Human Relations something, started by Rusty Kennedy? I read that too somewhere. Apparently they wanna do that stuff “in house.”
Are they qualified to handle that “in house”?? Looks like Rabbi Dicky is getting his way.
You mean OC Human Relations not to be confused with OC Human Relations Commission?
I could have the two confused.
Oc human relations became groundswell. They staff(ed) OC human relations commission. The commission is comprised of among others an American Israel lobby member – Rabbi Dicky Steinberg – and for county law enforcement- Irvine Police Chief Michael Kent fka Irvine police explorer Walid Abdelsamad.
If the commission wants to identify local racists, I recommend they start here.
https://www.farrahnkhan.com/supporters
Mayor Ashleigh Aitken, City of Anaheim
Letitia Clark-Tustin Councilmember
Becky Gomez-Tustin Councilmember
Allyson Damikolas-Tustin School Board Member
Kris Erickson-Orange School Board Member
Andrea Yamasaki-Orange School Board Member
Susan Sonne-Buena Park Councilmember
Connor Traut, Buena Park Mayor
Tiffany Ackley-Aliso Viejo Councilmember
Richard Hurt-Aliso Viejo Councilmember
Dan Kalmick-Huntington Beach Councilmember
Ahmad Zahra-Fullerton Councilmember
Barbara Schulman, Saddleback Valley Unified School Boardmember
Almost half of that list is quite good. Judging people by one endorsement on the basis of a personal ethnicity-based grievance is quite bad.
We need more like Becky Gomez, Allyson Damikolas, Andrea Yamasaki, Tiffany Ackley, and especially Dan Kalmick in city government.
You know what targeting people for one endorsement they you don’t like makes you look like? A Netanyahu-worshiping AIPAC member, that’s who. For shame!
AIPAC aipac aipac, so says aoc. Democrats infiltrated by the Republican Party.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/06/26/wikipedia-adl-jew-zionism-israel/
Gabriel San Roman may have dropped the ball re defunding of groundswell oc.
https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/entertainment/story/2024-03-19/gaza-war-divides-oc-human-relations-commission
Gabriel wrote about this yesterday.
https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/entertainment/story/2024-06-26/o-c-supervisors-end-contract-with-anti-hate-nonprofit-after-gaza-war-rift
Rabbi Petey Levi another American Israel lobby has no idea why the BoS defunded Groundswell OC. The same Rabbi Petey who remained silent when Farrah Khan got undressed and run up the flagpole of her Armeniaphobia and has no problems with the city of Irvine being partnered with Turkish Nationalist Genocide Deniers or the city allowing these same people display Ataturk at city sanctioned events. This is also the case with Rabbi Dicky – sat on the sidelines with his congregation in Irvine and stayed silent about Farrah Khan.
“Though I do not know why the Orange County Board of Supervisors decided to not renew the contract, there is plenty of cause to question why an anti-hate organization is failing to fight against hate when the Jewish people are targeted,” said Rabbi Peter Levi, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League in Orange County.
Rabbi Dicky was a signatory of this letter as a member of Orange County Citizens for Ethical Government to Irvine city attorney imploring the city to bar constitutionally protected speech critical of Israel at council meetings, etc. Not sure how that aligns with his belief that he is an anti-hate activist.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/658c724a382de9694133af4b/t/658c7bb542bb4b64a48527f4/1703705526647/Irvine+City+Council+Ethics+Violation-Delivered.pdf
https://www.occitizensforethicalgovernment.org/
As for GSR dropping the ball, this story was brewing since June 11th and he only piped in after the fact and without all the facts and other facts that were stale like what happened at the OC Human Relations Commission in Huntington Beach two weeks ago. Norma Lopez announcing she was stepping down as Executive Director was not itself independently newsworthy and was just a post script to his story.
I saw this on Dan Kalmick’s twitter feed yesterday: https://twitter.com/DanKalmick/status/1811180318306734124
And I thought this’ll be a good thing to get our minds – MY mind – off the Bringing Up Biden show for a little bit. So this morning I started to write “Naked and Ugly: The HB Airshow Giveaway Finally Revealed!” But I see the Voice beat us to it:
https://voiceofoc.org/2024/07/hb-leaders-give-up-thousands-of-public-parking-spots-to-airshow-operators-settlement-shows/
It’s a pretty good summary. The untold millions given away to the Republican majority’s campaign contributor is staggering. Here’s the actual ten-page settlement agreement that our friends had to fight so hard to see:
https://cms3.revize.com/revize/huntingtonbeachca/SETTLEMENT%20AGREEMENT%20AND%20GENERAL%20RELEASE_FINAL_SIGNED.pdf
What I can provide is the statement from successful plaintiff Gina Clayton-Tarvin, an old friend of this blog,. Here’s Gina:
“STATEMENT ON CPRA WIN AND RELEASE OF SETTLEMENT DOCUMENT
After yesterday’s court order requiring release of the Air Show legal settlement by Judge Jonathan Fish, I have now reviewed the full settlement agreement. I am proud to have prevailed on behalf of The People in demanding public transparency.
I can definitively say that our concerns about this wasteful agreement were well founded. The entire agreement is a shameless giveaway to Pacific Airshow LLC and Code Four CEO Kevin Elliot, who has made political donations to the current City Council majority. While the City and Mr. Gates had previously claimed that this was only a $5 million settlement, we now know the truth, the waste is much larger than that. The terms show:
• At least $6 Million in special event fees that the City has waived in advance by giving Pacific Airshow/Code Four the exclusive right to hold the Airshow for the next 40 years, and untold additional amounts as costs grow over time.
• At Least $6.3 Million – and untold additional amounts – in parking concessions that Pacific Airshow/Code Four can collect from its exclusive rights to 3500 parking spaces.
• At least $500,000 for costs to pay for the CEQA study to ensure that Pacific Airshow/Code Four can have this event for the next 40 years.
• Pacific Airshow/Code Four can take the first $2 Million the City gets in any lawsuit against Amplify Energy. That means that between Attorneys’ fees and costs, the City needs to recover more than $3.5 Million from Amplify Energy before the taxpayers of Huntington Beach see a dime. The City waived $450,000 in special event permit fees; nearly $200,000 that the Pacific Airshow/Code Four already paid for the 2021 Airshow (2 days of which happened, and that Pacific Airshow/Code Four can and should recover from Amplify Energy), refunded $150,000 for the 2022 Airshow, and waived $110,000 for the 2023 Airshow.
• Approximately $250,000 in interest for which the City will be liable on the $5 million cash payments.
Thus, the sad truth is that the Settlement Agreement will cost Huntington Beach taxpayers AT LEAST $20.5 Million. And, of course, we do not actually know how much will really be spent because there was no financial analysis done of this egregious secret agreement.
What’s just as troubling is that this secret agreement deprived other potential Huntington Beach and California businesses of a fair chance and even playing field to compete for Airshow economic opportunities. The Agreement gives Pacific Airshow/Code Four the exclusive rights to conduct the Airshow for the next 40 years. There will be no competitive bidding to attempt to find out if other operators even non-profit operators could provide greater value to the City.
This settlement is wasteful gifting of public funds which must be investigated now. I will be sending the document to Attorney General Rob Bonta as well as the State Auditor for review and action.
Please retweet to share this far and wide.”
And Vern says: We already knew it, but the dumb voters of Huntington Beach sure picked a rash of crooks last election! They’re rivalling Anaheim.
I planned to reprint that press release but life events intervened.
I hope you will make it its own piece — it’s certainly too important to be an afterthought in an Open Thread! — including both what VOC published and Gina’s comments, because I think that this sort of information is much easier to find in our story archive than in VOC’s. (And of course Chez Chumley makes it nearly impossible, though he’ll say I just don’t know how to do it, without providing instructions, or acknowledging his refusal to allow his pages to be archived at all.)
The thought that I had here is: Has Mikey Gates shown sufficient malfeasance here to be disbarred? I can think of a couple of theories of that case, but the third one — that he has basically asserted dictatorial powers over the Council’s permitting actions — means that he should be held to standards that hang all of the heightened responsibility he sought around him like the Ancient Mariner’s albatross in Coleridge’s Rime.
I’ll take a good look at then when time permits, if I remember to, but anyone else should feel welcome to beat me to that. Vern, know any prominent Dem lawyers who might opine? Lee? Wylie? … Todd?