If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Mossberg Plinkster***
Guest Monadnock & NES Need your Help!!!
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Comm2A, Jan 10, 2019.
If the moot-boot wasn't good enough for Roe vs. Wade almost 50 years ago, it isn't good enough here.
Found a new one: Lopez v. Mass.
4/30/2019 - Massachusetts waives right to respond to petition
5/08/2019 - Distributed for conference on 5/23/2019
5/09/2019 - Response requested - Due 6/10/2019
Clearly someone on the court wants to see how Massachusetts plans to defend burden shifting. At the least we may see a dissent from denial of cert that takes Massachusetts to task for burden shifting.
Yesterday SCOTUS upheld (7-2, Gorsuch & Ginsburg in dissent) the 'separate sovereigns' exception to the Constitution's double jeopardy prohibition prohibition. Basically, federal and state governments can continue to try you for the same offense. A not guilty verdict in one court does not prevent the other government from trying you again in their court.
That's some bullshit
Why would a court decide against itself and limit power? Power of the courts first, constitutional consideration second. The circus of “justice”.
Kinda surprised RGB dissented on this one, but not surprised by the outcome.
There seem to be a lot of interesting split decisions coming from scotus lately. So much for the partisan voting. At least there is hope that the court may be honest.
If the court was "Honest" it would stick to the constitution as written.....so far there's very little if any of that.......
Except when it comes to that bonded warehouse guy, f*** him in particular.
Interesting. The court's ruling is mostly respecting stare decisis. Thomas has an originalist concurrence in which he explicitly rejects stare decisis as a justification for the ruling. Gorsuch has a textualist dissent in which he resolves an issue that could have plausibly gone either way in favor of individual liberty. Ginsburg's dissent is 100% about her the outcome being "unfair" rather than making any reasonable interpretation of any law or constitutional provision.
But, Thomas still sided with the majority, which is based on stare decisis and nothing more.
The analogy he used was that if you committed a crime in a different country, you could be tried in the US and the other country. He said both the feds and states have their own sovereignty (from the FF), hence you should be able to be tried in both places.
The foreign court example is very odd to me and a huge stretch. I'm really straining to think of people who have slipped through some limp wristed foreign court and then flaunted around the world a free man with the guilt of OJ Simpson. Typically the people who bypass a fair trail to punish them for unspeakable acts have some sort of sweatheart deal with name the Western Intelligence Agency of your choice and are free men due to necessity for reasons. Which isn't exactly a great thing either with few exceptions.
This is out of my wheelhouse legal wise but it seems like a BS decision that only serves to benefit some draconian agendas. If you can't get someone in the 1st court, keep trying in a court with a separate bureaucratic jurisdiction? What? What am I missing here?
Thomas's concurrence was based on originalism. His point was that there is no evidence that at the time the Constitution was written, it restrained the prosecution of a single discrete act by both the feds and the states. So if Congress had passed a law in 1795 that overlapped with a state law, and both prosecuted, no one would have questioned that that was allowed. The balance of state/federal power was much different at the time.
I'd characterize that as a stretch, into the realm of what's recently been described as "ahistorical literalism". I think originalism is generally good, but only if supported by evidence. If you can't muster decent evidence to support a particular originalist view, then the default should be strict constructionist textualism. I think Gorsuch's textualist view is most plausible.
Under true originalism, federal prosecutions would be limited to treason and piracy. Under the Constitution, there is no authority for 99.9% of federal laws.
Separate names with a comma.