Just when you think the actions of a court of law couldn’t possibly make you any more angry or nauseated, along comes the retarded fools of South Carolina’s Supreme Court. I swear to all that might be holy, they are either patently stupid or bought and paid for. I, of course, refer to their recent ruling that it’s okay for local governments to supersede state law on smoking laws.

Why, might you ask, is this proof positive that they are fucking asshole idiots?

According to local news articles on the March 31st SC Supreme Court ruling, the Supreme Court's reasoning, aside from the usual "health trumps freedom", is that the language in question is present in a section of law dealing largely with minors and tobacco (sections -500 to 503).

From the Greenville News: "Supporters of the ordinance argued the section dealt only with the distribution of tobacco to minors. The justices agreed, ruling that (lower court Judge) Few had erred in finding that the section applied to the state’s Clean Indoor Air Act instead of just the law dealing with minors."

Here's the language:

SECTION 16-17-504. Implementation; local laws.

 

(A) Sections 16-17-500, 16-17-502, and 16-17-503 must be implemented in

an equitable and uniform manner throughout the State and enforced to

ensure the eligibility for and receipt of federal funds or grants the

State receives or may receive relating to the sections. Any laws,

ordinances, or rules enacted pertaining to tobacco products may not

supersede state law or regulation. Nothing herein shall affect the right

of any person having ownership or otherwise controlling private property to allow or prohibit the use of tobacco products on such property.

 

(B) Smoking ordinances in effect before the effective date of this act

are exempt from the requirements of subsection (A).

Can anyone explain how the bolded text above has any applicability to minors and tobacco? When was the last time a minor owned or controlled private property? Sounds like it is specifically addressing adult smoking regulation on private property to me! Section B above actually refers to "Smoking Ordinances", not minors and tobacco.

The other aspect to this is the fact that the plaintiffs in this case, Greenville bar owners, never even attempted to address the fraud of the claim that ETS (second hand smoke) is somehow “deadly”.

If the plaintiffs of this lawsuit had addressed the ETS fraud, perhaps the justices would've landed on the side of caution and upheld private property freedom. Instead, they used the health aspect as a justification for their ignorance of the above law. From the Post and Courier (in Charleston): "The city claims that the ordinance is a proper exercise of municipal power because it seeks to protect citizens from secondhand smoke," Justice John Waller wrote. "We agree. ... While the state has legislated restrictions on smoking in certain areas, a civil ordinance which adds areas does not in any way conflict with state law."

WELL, the above bolded excerpt of state law above says exactly the opposite. What part of “Any laws, ordinances or rules” does the Supreme Court not understand?!!

Now you can understand why I am pissed at these so-called guardians of law. I haven’t been this pissed off since the US Supreme Court ruling on Kelo vs The City of New London - where the city was given the OK to take people’s homes by eminent domain and sell them to a local developer to build a freakin’ retail space!

But I also firmly believe that some mistake lies in the plaintiffs. Can I please say it again: If you don't address the ETS threat fraud in a lawsuit, you will lose - even if the law is plainly on your side!!!!

I wish I could say this article is an April Fools joke - BUT IT’S NOT. Hell the court should’ve waited one more day... that would have been slightly more appropriate.