There's a new 9th and10th Amendment ruling from SCOTUS. Here's the decision.
CliffsNotes version as I understand it after a fast scan: A woman tried to get revenge on cheating hubby's preggers f-buddy by putting "caustic" chemicals (household items?) on sweetieskank's mailbox and door handles, causing minor burns on her "old fashioned" delivery system (if you don't watch South Park, forget it). This apparently violated US Code, the particular section of which was written to implement an international treaty/convention on chemical weapons development, production, use and stockpiling. You know, something to keep Saddam from gassing Kurds and the FBI from...never mind...
Anyway, Woman Scorned challenged that on 10A grounds and the lower courts told her she had no standing and now the Supremes unanimously say she does.
Did I get it right?
And if so, what does that bode for this?
[Via several of you]
CliffsNotes version as I understand it after a fast scan: A woman tried to get revenge on cheating hubby's preggers f-buddy by putting "caustic" chemicals (household items?) on sweetieskank's mailbox and door handles, causing minor burns on her "old fashioned" delivery system (if you don't watch South Park, forget it). This apparently violated US Code, the particular section of which was written to implement an international treaty/convention on chemical weapons development, production, use and stockpiling. You know, something to keep Saddam from gassing Kurds and the FBI from...never mind...
Anyway, Woman Scorned challenged that on 10A grounds and the lower courts told her she had no standing and now the Supremes unanimously say she does.
Did I get it right?
And if so, what does that bode for this?
[Via several of you]