Many are surprised to know that most of the decisions from the Supreme Court are 9-0. The newsworthy ones generally aren't, but 9-0 is the most common consensus among the hundreds of decisions issued.

Another significant 9-0 decision was handed down by the Court yesterday. They ruled unanimously that a warrant is required in order for the police to take and view your cell phone incident to detention and arrest.

True Kly. About 40-50% of rulings are 9-0. That's what is so insidious about the media (especially Fox). It portrays the Court as consistently divided and ideologically driven.

I agree, but it's also the American psyche and good old human nature. You hear 9-0 and you immediately think of a lopsided baseball game (usually involving the Pirates ).

Can you give us some other decisions that were 9-0

That did not have a agenda that could benefit one political party over and another instead of what is good for the country in general.

I was surprised by that given that the Court also recently ruled that anybody arrested could also be strip searched. But I am happy that the Justices made the interpretation that the 4th amendment wording of "effects" also included cell phones. I was concerned that Thomas or Scalia might have taken the "originalist" view that as there were no cell phones in 1787, then the 4th amendment didn't apply.

I also saw the McCullen vs. Coakley decision came down. How can that be balanced with "free speech zones" that have become ubiquitous anytime someone is trying to protest at party national conventions or presidential speeches?

I guess we'll get the Hobby Lobby decision on Monday. That should be interesting...

Law Professor Jonathan Turley does a touchdown dance and spikes the ball

I think it's important to understand what led to the Scotus ruling. Since the Senate makes its own rules, those rules allow one senator to keep the Senate in session. To thwart the President's recess nomination opportunities, the Republicans would send one of their own Senators to the Senate every three days or so to give a speech or conduct some brief, simple business. Thus, technically, the Senate would remain in session. The Court adopted a strict construction approach to come to this ruling.

This angry jackass has a bed waiting for him in rehab. Good luck getting an acting gig in Hollywood for a good long time after calling the cop a homophobic slur.

Spitting, swearing LaBeouf muzzled with mask after arrest

June 26, 2014 | 10:17pm

By Larry Celona and C.J. Sullivan

Troublemaking actor Shia LaBeouf went berserk in the audience at the Broadway musical “Cabaret” Thurs­day night and was hauled off in handcuffs to a station house — where he told cops, “I’ll f–k you up,” called an officer a “f-g,” and was muzzled with a face mask for spitting, sources said.

The “Nymphomaniac” star was slapping people on the behind and in the back of the head while smoking at around 9:30 p.m. in the Studio 54 theater, according to law-enforcement sources.

When cops approached him, he was “incoherent” and “very agitated,” they said.

He tried to quickly walk away from officers but fell flat on his face, the sources said.

Police hauled him out, his hands cuffed behind him, as theatergoers looked on.

At the Midtown-North station house, he allegedly became belligerent, demanding the cuffs be removed.

“F–k you. I’ll f–k you up!” the 28-year-old LaBeouf said, according to the sources.

Cops decided to not take the cuffs off the agitated “Transformers” star, and he allegedly started spitting, prompting officers to put a face mask on him.

LaBeouf then unloaded on the arresting officer and used a ­homophobic slur.

“I have millions and millions of dollars and attorneys,” the ­unhinged actor said. “I’m going to ruin your career,” he added, then allegedly called the cop a “f-g.”

One police source said the actor smelled terrible and lied about ­being in the Army.

He was charged with criminal trespass, harassment and disorderly conduct, according to the sources.

“Just saw Shia LaBeouf in handcuffs in tears surrounded by 6 police officers outside of CABARET the musical,” tweeted Benj Pasek.

The actor has had his share of bizarre incidents in the past.

In January, he was videotaped head-butting a man during a bar brawl in London, according to ABC.

In February, he was seen disheveled, with a paper bag over his head, at the Berlin Film Festival.

He was arrested at a Chicago Walgreens in 2007 for refusing to leave the store.

After Thursday night’s bust, one “Cabaret” actor reportedly joked about it on social media.

“Ladies and gentlemen, this is your places call for Act II. Also, to let you know, Shia LaBeouf has just been escorted from the building in handcuffs. Yep, that just happened,” cast member Danny Burstein wrote on Facebook, according to the website Just Jared.

http://pagesix.com/2014/06/26/shia-labeo...8704.1403814272

I don't know anything about LeBeouf's personal life, at least not til recently.

That being said, I kind of liked Disturbia and really liked Eagle Eye. I don't think he's a bad actor.




TIS

Is that the kid in wall street 2?

Yeah, and he's a pretty good actor. But he's fucked up on drugs, and he has the same short man complex as every other four foot tall actor in Hollywood. He just needs to be slapped. Hard. In front of a room full of women. Then he'll learn humility.

Oh yea, "Wall Street, Money Never Sleeps." I forgot about that movie. I didn't mind him in that either. I DO remember him wearing a bag over his head at awards show or something? Ha ha. Yea, he definitely has issues.




TIS

I've heard his name before and know he's an actor, but I can't tell you what he looks like. I don't know if his issues were previously brought to light, but I heard his name as a punch line to some of the late-night comedians' jokes.

Kly,

Off immediate topic...Any predictions on what the Supreme Court will rule on the Hobby Lobby case? Just curious.






TIS

TIS,

Yes I agree he is a very good actor, unfortunately he has a long history of aggressive and erratic behavior as well as substance abuse. Now he has a major PR problem with the slurs toward the police officer being made public.

^^^^
Just read this kid's bio. He grew up with hippie parents, all peace and love and blah blah fucking blah. Claims he's all about "tolerance."

Just another Hollyweird hypocrite .

Shia chased bum for his food before meltdown

By Lorena Mongelli, Natalie O'Neill and Jamie Schram

June 27, 2014 | 10:32am

Troublemaking actor Shia LaBeouf chased after a homeless man — demanding he hand over a McDonald’s bag in Times Square — a few hours before he went berserk at the Broadway Musical “Cabaret,” new video footage reveals.

“He really wanted whatever was in that bag. He had so much focus. … If there were French fries in the bag, maybe he really wanted to eat them, ” a witness said.

He added, “He was dodging people and and yelling, ‘Yo, come on!’ … He was on a mission. It was so bizarre.”

The witness, who works in the publishing industry, was walking home from work with his girlfriend around 6:23 p.m. when they spotted the “Transformers” actor at Broadway and 49th Street, dodging pedestrians to catch up with the homeless man.

“At first I thought the bum had stolen something from [LaBeouf]. But the bum was responding in almost a joking manner.”

His girlfriend added, “It was like they were playing tag!”

The cat-and-mouse game broke out just three hours before the star was hauled away in handcuffs for smoking inside Studio 54 Theater, slapping actors’ butts — including Alan Cumming — both backstage and in the audience, and talking back to cops on Thursday night.

Officers tossed him in a holding cell at Midtown North, where he lashed out at officers, saying, “I’m going to kick your a–,” police sources said.

Later, he began singing a strange, apparently made-up hip-hop song, rapping, “I want to go out. I want to go out,” police sources said.

Once in the holding cell, he began pacing around, police sources said.

LaBeouf was released from the holding cell on Friday morning.

Looking frazzled and wearing a ripped blue shirt — and boots without laces — he was arraigned at Midtown Community Court around 10 a.m.

Labeouf appeared in front of Judge Felicia Mennin with a public defender and was released on his own recognizance. He kept his hands clasped behind his back and stared straight ahead. He said nothing.

The actor was charged with criminal trespass, disorderly conduct and harassment.

He declined to comment afterward.

http://pagesix.com/2014/06/27/shia-labeo...8704.1403814272

Good question. Breyer and Kennedy are the wild cards here, but I would predict the Court affirms the Tenth Circuit in favor of Hobby Lobby, and remands to the district court for fact finding in accordance with the decision.

The Court has already ruled that corporations are people for free speech rights under the First. There are sound arguments on both sides.

It's funny though that Hobby Lobby had no religious problem with growing the money in the company 401k plan by investing in manufacturers of oral contraceptives.

What an asshole. He got lucky he got a DC which for anyone else would've probably be felony charges. I guess he wanted one of those giant hamburgers they get ya every time

Hamilton,

Agreed, Guy is a major ahole with an ego the size of Texas. I think McDonalds is putting something in those giant burgers.

Yeah but once your in the cell they take your cell no pun intended and more then likely are going to look through it if you don't have a password/lock on it.

Kly, I'm thinking that the Court will agree with Lobby's basic 1st amendment argument, but will carve out a minor inconvenience exception (or something similar) in government's favor.

I'm not sure what to expect, but wouldn't it open the door to for any "corporation" owner/s to eliminate any coverage that may be against his/her religion?


TIS

I am surprised about that kid. He had everything going for him.

That's a possibility TIS. But SCOTUS opinions are usually discreet enough to distinguish between various legal scenarios.

I agree that if there is a ruling in favor it will be a narrow one. The Court is aware that a broad ruling would contradict without overruling some established precedent, and could open a floodgate of cases involving corporations claiming individual, personal rights to circumvent law, not only in the area of religious freedom and contraception, but in other areas.

There are at least 70 amicus briefs filed in the matter, representing both sides. The majority may take the view that the burden on freedom is de minimis as the law does not require the corporation to buy health insurance under the act, and the business is allowed to opt out if they don't want to provide the healthcare plan proscribed.

This opens a few cans of worms as well.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that closely held corporations can not be required to provide employee health insurance that includes contraception where such provision would violate the religious beliefs of the owners of the corporation.

I haven't read the decision, but the majority opinion was written by Alito. It is reportedly narrowly tailored to limit the ruling to contraception, and apparently corporations, whose owners are opposed to blood transfusions and vaccinations on religious grounds, can not claim an exemption from that mandate.

Ginsburg wrote the dissent.

Hobby Lobby, who claims that they can't offer contraception because of their religious beliefs, has no problem investing the company 401K in companies that produce contraception and Plan B. So, it's okay to PROFIT from the products of these companies, but not PAY for them. Hypocrites much?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/20...ious-objection/

I just saw that same story SB. When it's for profit, it's a different ball game isn't it? Hypocrites for sure.





TIS

Both you and Babe are wrong. Both plaintiffs contended that the AHCA required them to financially support the purchase of pharmaceuticals that would abort children in the womb which violates their religious beliefs. They also argued that such a requirement is not the least restrictive means employed byt he AHCA.