Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A thread for New (TM) [SCOTUS] decisions and arguments.

silence1186silence1186 Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered User regular
All rise, the new SCOTUS thread is back in session. We'll be considering cases for the Fall Term, to start.

A few ground rules, as previously noted:
Expectations for this thread

1. This is not the general politics or lol this party sucks thread.
2. This is a thread about the US Supreme Court, if it doesn't have anything to do with SCOTUS, it doesn't belong here.
3. Not all things about SCOTUS belong here. Some cases dealing with certain issues, already have a thread or their own god damn separate thread that is more appropriate to discuss a certain SCOTUS rulings or cases.
4. In the event that a tangent regarding something involving SCOTUS has it's own thread created after the discussion starts in this thread, then move the discussion over to the new thread. (Also appreciated if people link to the new thread to help others out).
5. In the event that we get a SCOTUS vacancy in the lifetime of this thread, this would probably be the best place to discuss such an appointment given how low traffic this thread is likely to be. (leaving this for posterity and lols - SIG)
5a. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are seated. My feelings on the matter can be found here. I don't know if there's much ground for meaningful discussion in screaming into the void at the injustice of it all, or having the same multi-page arguments with the few posters who do approve of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Probably for the best to stick to just the facts, and discuss new things going forward.

scotusblog.com is the go to place for things relevant to what's going on. There's actually been a few decisions already this term!

This 8-0 about frog habitats.

This 8-0 about age discrimination against public employees.

They've heard arguments about quite a few more cases.

I've got my eye on you counselor. You may proceed. /bangs gavel
20081022.gif

V wrote:
Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

Frankiedarling
«13

Posts

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Have we mentioned that the Court might crack down on excessive fines at the state level?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/us/politics/supreme-court-excessive-fines-land-rover.html
    Thomas M. Fisher, Indiana’s solicitor general, faced unusually intense skepticism from the Supreme Court on Wednesday when he argued that the Constitution had nothing to say about civil forfeiture laws that allow states and localities to take and keep private property used to commit crimes.

    Obviously reading tea leaves from argument is dicey at best but this could be what will be rare good news from the Court

  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    Have we mentioned that the Court might crack down on excessive fines at the state level?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/us/politics/supreme-court-excessive-fines-land-rover.html
    Thomas M. Fisher, Indiana’s solicitor general, faced unusually intense skepticism from the Supreme Court on Wednesday when he argued that the Constitution had nothing to say about civil forfeiture laws that allow states and localities to take and keep private property used to commit crimes.

    Obviously reading tea leaves from argument is dicey at best but this could be what will be rare good news from the Court

    I'm pretty sure Thomas has said in the past that Civil Forfeiture is some kinds of nonsense.

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

    Styrofoam SammichFencingsaxShadowfiremonikerspool32Moridin889dispatch.oCommunistCowN1tSt4lker
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Have we mentioned that the Court might crack down on excessive fines at the state level?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/us/politics/supreme-court-excessive-fines-land-rover.html
    Thomas M. Fisher, Indiana’s solicitor general, faced unusually intense skepticism from the Supreme Court on Wednesday when he argued that the Constitution had nothing to say about civil forfeiture laws that allow states and localities to take and keep private property used to commit crimes.

    Obviously reading tea leaves from argument is dicey at best but this could be what will be rare good news from the Court

    I'm pretty sure Thomas has said in the past that Civil Forfeiture is some kinds of nonsense.

    I like to think its because its blatantly a violation of very clear civil rights but more likely it manages to fall just right on the "Your Political Ideology" grid.

    kimeCommander Zoomdispatch.o
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Have we mentioned that the Court might crack down on excessive fines at the state level?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/us/politics/supreme-court-excessive-fines-land-rover.html
    Thomas M. Fisher, Indiana’s solicitor general, faced unusually intense skepticism from the Supreme Court on Wednesday when he argued that the Constitution had nothing to say about civil forfeiture laws that allow states and localities to take and keep private property used to commit crimes.

    Obviously reading tea leaves from argument is dicey at best but this could be what will be rare good news from the Court

    I'm pretty sure Thomas has said in the past that Civil Forfeiture is some kinds of nonsense.

    I like to think its because its blatantly a violation of very clear civil rights but more likely it manages to fall just right on the "Your Political Ideology" grid.

    Yeah, that hits a sweet spot where lots of ideologies hate it. In part because it's such flagrant bullshit. SCOTUS has been hinting that they don't like it for the last few years at least iirc? So I think its days are numbered until they ban the practice or put the burden of proof on the state at least.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Have we mentioned that the Court might crack down on excessive fines at the state level?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/us/politics/supreme-court-excessive-fines-land-rover.html
    Thomas M. Fisher, Indiana’s solicitor general, faced unusually intense skepticism from the Supreme Court on Wednesday when he argued that the Constitution had nothing to say about civil forfeiture laws that allow states and localities to take and keep private property used to commit crimes.

    Obviously reading tea leaves from argument is dicey at best but this could be what will be rare good news from the Court

    I'm pretty sure Thomas has said in the past that Civil Forfeiture is some kinds of nonsense.

    I like to think its because its blatantly a violation of very clear civil rights but more likely it manages to fall just right on the "Your Political Ideology" grid.

    Yeah, that hits a sweet spot where lots of ideologies hate it. In part because it's such flagrant bullshit. SCOTUS has been hinting that they don't like it for the last few years at least iirc? So I think its days are numbered until they ban the practice or put the burden of proof on the state at least.

    Theres a chance Roberts convinces them to pull their punch of course

  • P10P10 An Idiot With Low IQ Registered User regular
    civil forfeiture doesn't seem like a politicized/obviously partisan issue outside of the fact that law enforcement likes it and liberals who watch john oliver dislike it, which strikes me as the type of issue that is most likely to get a fair reading from the court.

    Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Have we mentioned that the Court might crack down on excessive fines at the state level?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/us/politics/supreme-court-excessive-fines-land-rover.html
    Thomas M. Fisher, Indiana’s solicitor general, faced unusually intense skepticism from the Supreme Court on Wednesday when he argued that the Constitution had nothing to say about civil forfeiture laws that allow states and localities to take and keep private property used to commit crimes.

    Obviously reading tea leaves from argument is dicey at best but this could be what will be rare good news from the Court

    I'm pretty sure Thomas has said in the past that Civil Forfeiture is some kinds of nonsense.

    I like to think its because its blatantly a violation of very clear civil rights but more likely it manages to fall just right on the "Your Political Ideology" grid.

    Thomas is mostly consistent in his judicial philosophy. It also would fit right in during the 18th century, aside from the obvious problem for him serving with slaveowners. It's just pretty batshit crazy today in a lot of ways.

    FencingsaxshrykeAuralynxMrVyngaardoverride367
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    The frog case is actually interesting!

    US Fish & Wildlife designated a plot of farm timber as a critical habitat for a frog despite no frog having been seen there since 1965. This part is undisputed.

    Dept. Interior argues that
    1) if it used to be a habitat and it maybe could be again with some slight modification to the landscape (such as cutting down all the trees and planting a completely new kind of forest to change the canopy coverage), we can label it critical habitat. Frogs are adorable, why do you hate them.
    2) we estimate the value of the land to be $33.9 million after ignoring all the other money already invested in development of the land, and that's not enough of a loss for the landowner to dissuade us from taking it
    3) the statute is special and our decisions can't be reviewed by the Judicial branch so neener neener stop bothering our probably frog house!

    The Weyerhaeuser family argues that
    1) if it's not currently a habitat where frogs can live, it can't be a critical habitat for frogs so go away plz we're busy cutting all the trees down in this unchangeable forest to build a subdivision
    2) Interior ignored a bunch of financial stuff it should have considered (i.e. farming the trees is chump change next to building all these houses we planned on) so the financial impact is way higher and we like dollars
    3) be serious, of course judicial review is a thing in this case


    Court ruled that
    1) a critical habitat seems like it ought to be, you know, a habitat... or at least a possible habitat? idk. Remanded to Appeals to figure out what the fuck a habitat even is.
    2) ehhh we'll see. Keep reading.
    3) statute only grants power to designate critical habitat after the Secretary does specific things i.e. considering all the relevant impacts. Since it's structured that way, Judicial review of whether it acted appropriately is too appropriate, who y'all tryna fuck with anyway, get that "drawn with no meaningful standard against which the Court can judge exercise of discretion" shit outta here. Remanded to Appeals, now including authority to actually decide the central question of Interior's behavior like we do on the reg.
    4) seriously, this is some day to day shit we do, don't fuckin test us

    Orcasilence1186MorganVMartini_PhilosopherArbitraryDescriptorFencingsaxlazegamerabotkinHedgethornknitdanwanderingCommander Zoomdispatch.oDarklyreBlackDragon480
  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    The frog case is actually interesting!

    I want to read more court cases summarized like that :P

    evilthecat wrote: »
    "Bioware I want to suck on your teets of gamingness".

    The 2012 issue of Fornax. | Steam and Origin: Espressosaurus
    silence1186monikerMorganVHahnsoo1BrodyabotkinHedgethorn38thDoeTynnanHappylilElfCommander Zoomdispatch.oDarklyreCommunistCowN1tSt4lker
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Orca wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    The frog case is actually interesting!

    I want to read more court cases summarized like that :P

    Iguanas raise some good statutory points, but salamanders should ultimately prevail.

  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    So hey, here's one of those cases people were worried about with Kavanugh:

    https://theweek.com/speedreads/810576/scotus-reconsidering-170year-precedent-double-jeopardy
    Since the 1850s, the Supreme Court has permitted double prosecutions for the same crime if one is done by the federal government and another by a state. But the court will hear arguments Thursday in Gamble v. United States, a case which could overturn that precedent

    Basically, we're going to see if Trump can pardon state-level crimes.

    I generally agree that the idea of "prosecute until you win" is heinous on its face, but the idea of it being abused by the already extensive pardon-power of the Executive is terrifying in an entirely different way.

    Styrofoam Sammichkimedispatch.o
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    It obviously runs against the entire idea of double jeopardy and shouldn't be allowed. The obvious answer is that the President shouldn't be able to pardon people at all but that won't change.

  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    It obviously runs against the entire idea of double jeopardy and shouldn't be allowed. The obvious answer is that the President shouldn't be able to pardon people at all but that won't change.

    I don't think it's obvious.
    It pretty well accepted that one act can be multiple crimes.

    I'm not sure which way I sway on that one too be honest.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    Aioua wrote: »
    It obviously runs against the entire idea of double jeopardy and shouldn't be allowed. The obvious answer is that the President shouldn't be able to pardon people at all but that won't change.

    I don't think it's obvious.
    It pretty well accepted that one act can be multiple crimes.

    I'm not sure which way I sway on that one too be honest.

    If the state and feds are trying for different criminal acts that occured in the general umbrella of an event them fine, but the State shouldnt get two bites at the apple just because the local one wants a go too.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Would it do anything for pre-emptive pardons?

    Cause the way I'm reading it (and I am sooooo not a lawyer), is that if you're given a verdict at a federal level, you can't be charged at a state level.

    It doesn't seem to cover a state level charge if the federal charge doesn't go to trial.

    It kinda runs along the same lines of if you can charge a pre-empted pardon. Sure, the eventual outcome would be the same (the charges party is pardoned), so it'd be a waste of time and money, but if a prosecutor wanted to make the case, could he do it anyway?

  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    It obviously runs against the entire idea of double jeopardy and shouldn't be allowed. The obvious answer is that the President shouldn't be able to pardon people at all but that won't change.

    I don't think it's obvious.
    It pretty well accepted that one act can be multiple crimes.

    I'm not sure which way I sway on that one too be honest.

    If the state and feds are trying for different criminal acts that occured in the general umbrella of an event them fine, but the State shouldnt get two bites at the apple just because the local one wants a go too.

    What do you do when these are in conflict?

    What if a state wants to nullify a federal law by making their own version with a penally of $1. Feds serve you papers? Go down to the state courthouse and confess.
    Or vice versa.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    It obviously runs against the entire idea of double jeopardy and shouldn't be allowed. The obvious answer is that the President shouldn't be able to pardon people at all but that won't change.

    I don't think it's obvious.
    It pretty well accepted that one act can be multiple crimes.

    I'm not sure which way I sway on that one too be honest.

    If the state and feds are trying for different criminal acts that occured in the general umbrella of an event them fine, but the State shouldnt get two bites at the apple just because the local one wants a go too.

    What do you do when these are in conflict?

    What if a state wants to nullify a federal law by making their own version with a penally of $1. Feds serve you papers? Go down to the state courthouse and confess.
    Or vice versa.

    Then they pay a 1$ fine if the local government gets around to prosecuting first. I don't think "it would be easier for the government" is a good reason to undermine double jeopardy protections.

    NSDFRand
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    Aioua wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    It obviously runs against the entire idea of double jeopardy and shouldn't be allowed. The obvious answer is that the President shouldn't be able to pardon people at all but that won't change.

    I don't think it's obvious.
    It pretty well accepted that one act can be multiple crimes.

    I'm not sure which way I sway on that one too be honest.

    If the state and feds are trying for different criminal acts that occured in the general umbrella of an event them fine, but the State shouldnt get two bites at the apple just because the local one wants a go too.

    What do you do when these are in conflict?

    What if a state wants to nullify a federal law by making their own version with a penally of $1. Feds serve you papers? Go down to the state courthouse and confess.
    Or vice versa.

    Then they pay a 1$ fine if the local government gets around to prosecuting first. I don't think "it would be easier for the government" is a good reason to undermine double jeopardy protections.

    How do you feel about tribal sovereignty? Because attacking this precedent is going to have big repercussions there.

    spool32BigJoeMmonikerMartini_PhilosopherabotkinMoridin889dispatch.o
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    It obviously runs against the entire idea of double jeopardy and shouldn't be allowed. The obvious answer is that the President shouldn't be able to pardon people at all but that won't change.

    I don't think it's obvious.
    It pretty well accepted that one act can be multiple crimes.

    I'm not sure which way I sway on that one too be honest.

    If the state and feds are trying for different criminal acts that occured in the general umbrella of an event them fine, but the State shouldnt get two bites at the apple just because the local one wants a go too.

    What do you do when these are in conflict?

    What if a state wants to nullify a federal law by making their own version with a penally of $1. Feds serve you papers? Go down to the state courthouse and confess.
    Or vice versa.

    Then they pay a 1$ fine if the local government gets around to prosecuting first. I don't think "it would be easier for the government" is a good reason to undermine double jeopardy protections.

    How do you feel about tribal sovereignty? Because attacking this precedent is going to have big repercussions there.

    The American government has only ever cared about tribal sovereignty up until it would inconvenience even slightly anything the federal government wants to do.

    DarkPrimus on
    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    It obviously runs against the entire idea of double jeopardy and shouldn't be allowed. The obvious answer is that the President shouldn't be able to pardon people at all but that won't change.

    I don't think it's obvious.
    It pretty well accepted that one act can be multiple crimes.

    I'm not sure which way I sway on that one too be honest.

    If the state and feds are trying for different criminal acts that occured in the general umbrella of an event them fine, but the State shouldnt get two bites at the apple just because the local one wants a go too.

    What do you do when these are in conflict?

    What if a state wants to nullify a federal law by making their own version with a penally of $1. Feds serve you papers? Go down to the state courthouse and confess.
    Or vice versa.

    Then they pay a 1$ fine if the local government gets around to prosecuting first. I don't think "it would be easier for the government" is a good reason to undermine double jeopardy protections.

    How do you feel about tribal sovereignty? Because attacking this precedent is going to have big repercussions there.

    The American government has only ever cared about tribal sovereignty up until it would inconvenience even slightly anything the federal government wants to do.

    Right now, the dual sovereign doctrine allows tribes to prosecute someone for the same crime as the feds. Meaning feds can't just scoop someone and prosecute, leaving the tribe with no redress in their own tribal courts. Attacking the dual sovereign doctrine will affect that and may take away yet more sovereignty from the tribes.

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    Just something to think about for folks saying the dual sovereigns doctrine should be abolished because of double jeopardy .

    shrykeMartini_PhilosopherabotkinSpoit
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    Wouldn't that just allow the states to usurp federal law by creating a carbon copy of federal law, altering down all the sentences, and getting folks to plead into their system rather than facing the federal one?

    As well, if a pardon system is implemented at a state level wouldn't that give states a way to pardon away federal crimes?

    Sleep on
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    Pretty sure most governors have pardon power.

    I would love to know how often prosecutions happen for the same crime at both state and federal levels. My guess is it's not very often at all. IME, when a state case "goes federal" the state drops their prosecution as the feds can achieve the same goals and often greater penalties.

    AiouaPhillishereSleepMartini_PhilosophermonikerFencingsaxabotkinMoridin889
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Wouldn't that just allow the states to usurp federal law by creating a carbon copy of federal law, altering down all the sentences, and getting folks to plead into their system rather than facing the federal one?

    As well, if a pardon system is implemented at a state level wouldn't that give states a way to pardon away federal crimes?

    I get the feeling the intention here is to make it a one-way street with a big sign on it that says "Republicans Only". This was Orrin Hatch's big reason for rushing Kavanaugh through the system.

    Commander ZoomSpoit
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    So It Goes wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    It obviously runs against the entire idea of double jeopardy and shouldn't be allowed. The obvious answer is that the President shouldn't be able to pardon people at all but that won't change.

    I don't think it's obvious.
    It pretty well accepted that one act can be multiple crimes.

    I'm not sure which way I sway on that one too be honest.

    If the state and feds are trying for different criminal acts that occured in the general umbrella of an event them fine, but the State shouldnt get two bites at the apple just because the local one wants a go too.

    What do you do when these are in conflict?

    What if a state wants to nullify a federal law by making their own version with a penally of $1. Feds serve you papers? Go down to the state courthouse and confess.
    Or vice versa.

    Then they pay a 1$ fine if the local government gets around to prosecuting first. I don't think "it would be easier for the government" is a good reason to undermine double jeopardy protections.

    How do you feel about tribal sovereignty? Because attacking this precedent is going to have big repercussions there.

    The American government has only ever cared about tribal sovereignty up until it would inconvenience even slightly anything the federal government wants to do.

    Right now, the dual sovereign doctrine allows tribes to prosecute someone for the same crime as the feds. Meaning feds can't just scoop someone and prosecute, leaving the tribe with no redress in their own tribal courts. Attacking the dual sovereign doctrine will affect that and may take away yet more sovereignty from the tribes.

    I more comfortable with a situation where the various tribal governments operate as an exception. I don't think that's what we'd get if they strike down precedent of course, but I also don't think this case is really that much of a good faith civil rights concern either.

    C'est la vie

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    Perhaps in areas where there significant overlap between jurisdiction. Interstate commerce clause has been tortured to allow the federal government to prosecute their war on drugs.

    States wouldn't have jurisdiction for traditional federal violations, such as federal income tax evasion, treason, and antitrust violations, etc.

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    Have we mentioned that the Court might crack down on excessive fines at the state level?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/us/politics/supreme-court-excessive-fines-land-rover.html
    Thomas M. Fisher, Indiana’s solicitor general, faced unusually intense skepticism from the Supreme Court on Wednesday when he argued that the Constitution had nothing to say about civil forfeiture laws that allow states and localities to take and keep private property used to commit crimes.

    Obviously reading tea leaves from argument is dicey at best but this could be what will be rare good news from the Court

    I'm pretty sure Thomas has said in the past that Civil Forfeiture is some kinds of nonsense.

    And gorsuch goose that he is also seems to find this level of civil forfeiture and the arguments for it presented to be total and utter nonsense. And really if the founding fathers set that you can't do monetary fines disproportionate to the crimes then how is property not included in that. I am glad that at least it looks like a lot of those civil forfeiture cases seem like they may wind up with some good precedents to slap down abuses of it.

    So It Goesmonikerabotkin
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Perhaps in areas where there significant overlap between jurisdiction. Interstate commerce clause has been tortured to allow the federal government to prosecute their war on drugs.

    States wouldn't have jurisdiction for traditional federal violations, such as federal income tax evasion, treason, and antitrust violations, etc.

    Sure they would, if the criminal acts occurred within the state's borders and violated some part of state law. Or are you suggesting a new law to limit state jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction both?

    moniker
  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    One area of the state federal stuff that probably is most worring to manafort and trump is state/federal tax violations. But in that case it is not a matter of double jeopardy as lying on your state taxes is a distinct crime from lying on your federal forms. Closely related but you are giving your word on both forms that the above information is correct. I can see some cases where this kind of double jeopardy may be an issue though.

    So It GoesFencingsax
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    kaid wrote: »
    One area of the state federal stuff that probably is most worring to manafort and trump is state/federal tax violations. But in that case it is not a matter of double jeopardy as lying on your state taxes is a distinct crime from lying on your federal forms. Closely related but you are giving your word on both forms that the above information is correct. I can see some cases where this kind of double jeopardy may be an issue though.

    I think banking fraud is another big concern. You commit fraud in NY, the State of NY wants your ass but pretty much all bank fraud has an interstate component now so federal statues also apply...

    So It GoesFencingsaxMoridin889ArbitraryDescriptorknitdan
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Perhaps in areas where there significant overlap between jurisdiction. Interstate commerce clause has been tortured to allow the federal government to prosecute their war on drugs.

    States wouldn't have jurisdiction for traditional federal violations, such as federal income tax evasion, treason, and antitrust violations, etc.

    Sure they would, if the criminal acts occurred within the state's borders and violated some part of state law. Or are you suggesting a new law to limit state jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction both?

    Wouldn't https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._United_States dictate that certain crimes have exclusive federal jurisdiction?

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    kaid wrote: »
    One area of the state federal stuff that probably is most worring to manafort and trump is state/federal tax violations. But in that case it is not a matter of double jeopardy as lying on your state taxes is a distinct crime from lying on your federal forms. Closely related but you are giving your word on both forms that the above information is correct. I can see some cases where this kind of double jeopardy may be an issue though.

    I think banking fraud is another big concern. You commit fraud in NY, the State of NY wants your ass but pretty much all bank fraud has an interstate component now so federal statues also apply...

    Why allow two trials though? Make the split happen at sentencing. You can be tried once, and federal/state/tribal prosecutors can share information or decide amongst themselves where you should be charged. Then when sentencing happens you can have multiple sentences for federal or state or whatever. Ideally the sentencing would also be something that is decided on a per law basis before hand.

    If there is enough of a deference in the criteria for being guilty at a state vs federal level that one trial wouldn't necessarily cover both, then it seems like the crimes are different enough to be tried separately as distinct crimes.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    lazegamer wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Perhaps in areas where there significant overlap between jurisdiction. Interstate commerce clause has been tortured to allow the federal government to prosecute their war on drugs.

    States wouldn't have jurisdiction for traditional federal violations, such as federal income tax evasion, treason, and antitrust violations, etc.

    Sure they would, if the criminal acts occurred within the state's borders and violated some part of state law. Or are you suggesting a new law to limit state jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction both?

    Wouldn't https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._United_States dictate that certain crimes have exclusive federal jurisdiction?

    That specifically has to do with immigration law, which is always the purview of the federal government

    spool32monikerMartini_PhilosopherFencingsax
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    kaid wrote: »
    One area of the state federal stuff that probably is most worring to manafort and trump is state/federal tax violations. But in that case it is not a matter of double jeopardy as lying on your state taxes is a distinct crime from lying on your federal forms. Closely related but you are giving your word on both forms that the above information is correct. I can see some cases where this kind of double jeopardy may be an issue though.

    I think banking fraud is another big concern. You commit fraud in NY, the State of NY wants your ass but pretty much all bank fraud has an interstate component now so federal statues also apply...

    Why allow two trials though? Make the split happen at sentencing. You can be tried once, and federal/state/tribal prosecutors can share information or decide amongst themselves where you should be charged. Then when sentencing happens you can have multiple sentences for federal or state or whatever. Ideally the sentencing would also be something that is decided on a per law basis before hand.

    If there is enough of a deference in the criteria for being guilty at a state vs federal level that one trial wouldn't necessarily cover both, then it seems like the crimes are different enough to be tried separately as distinct crimes.

    What if the state, feds, or tribe don't agree on trial tactics, or have slightly different elements to prove (perhaps the state crime requires an intentional mental state while the federal crime requires a knowing one), or don't have equal resources?

    Where do you pick the jury from? In state crimes, it's from the county you're prosecuted in. For federal the pool could be much wider. For tribal it's most likely going to be fellow tribal members.

    "Just have one trial" isn't that easy and definitely stomps all over the idea of states and tribes as separate sovereign entities.

    monikerspool32abotkinMartini_PhilosopherFencingsaxshrykeHefflingMoridin889ArbitraryDescriptorTynnan
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Also, I'd like to go back to, "How often are people actually tried at varying levels?" If its mostly just an issue where Tribes also want justice, and suddenly also an issue of whether or not States can persecute regardless of Presidential pardon, than I feel like its not at all against the spirit of Double Jeopardy.

    "The shore does not dream of you." - Blind poet Gallan.
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    So It Goes wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Perhaps in areas where there significant overlap between jurisdiction. Interstate commerce clause has been tortured to allow the federal government to prosecute their war on drugs.

    States wouldn't have jurisdiction for traditional federal violations, such as federal income tax evasion, treason, and antitrust violations, etc.

    Sure they would, if the criminal acts occurred within the state's borders and violated some part of state law. Or are you suggesting a new law to limit state jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction both?

    Wouldn't https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._United_States dictate that certain crimes have exclusive federal jurisdiction?

    That specifically has to do with immigration law, which is always the purview of the federal government

    Perhaps I was unclear, because that was exactly the point I was making. Removal of the dual sovereignty doctrine would allow states to "usurp" only those federal laws where there is substantial overlap. Immigration is one of those areas where there is not.

    lazegamer on
    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    kaid wrote: »
    One area of the state federal stuff that probably is most worring to manafort and trump is state/federal tax violations. But in that case it is not a matter of double jeopardy as lying on your state taxes is a distinct crime from lying on your federal forms. Closely related but you are giving your word on both forms that the above information is correct. I can see some cases where this kind of double jeopardy may be an issue though.

    I think banking fraud is another big concern. You commit fraud in NY, the State of NY wants your ass but pretty much all bank fraud has an interstate component now so federal statues also apply...

    Why allow two trials though? Make the split happen at sentencing. You can be tried once, and federal/state/tribal prosecutors can share information or decide amongst themselves where you should be charged. Then when sentencing happens you can have multiple sentences for federal or state or whatever. Ideally the sentencing would also be something that is decided on a per law basis before hand.

    If there is enough of a deference in the criteria for being guilty at a state vs federal level that one trial wouldn't necessarily cover both, then it seems like the crimes are different enough to be tried separately as distinct crimes.

    What if the state, feds, or tribe don't agree on trial tactics, or have slightly different elements to prove (perhaps the state crime requires an intentional mental state while the federal crime requires a knowing one), or don't have equal resources?

    Where do you pick the jury from? In state crimes, it's from the county you're prosecuted in. For federal the pool could be much wider. For tribal it's most likely going to be fellow tribal members.

    "Just have one trial" isn't that easy and definitely stomps all over the idea of states and tribes as separate sovereign entities.

    I mean, that is the state/fed/tribes problem to work out before hand. I don't see why I would trample on the individuals right to not have endless trials just because the agencies can't decide the best course of prosecution. Presumably you would need some laws dictating who gets final say if they can't agree, but I don't think the right answer is to simply let them all have a crack at it separately.

    I also don't see how the current setup is upholding the separate entities any better. Federal laws can and do trump states/tribal laws (when explicitly stated). If the state wants to give a lighter sentence the feds can come in and prosecute them again and give a heavier one. If the state wants to give a heavier sentence, federal law could presumably be created that prohibits this (this one seems less clear to me I guess but cases like United States v. Cardenas-Juarez, 9th Cir. 2006, seem to indicate that the federal laws can establish maximum sentences for crimes).

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    lazegamer wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Perhaps in areas where there significant overlap between jurisdiction. Interstate commerce clause has been tortured to allow the federal government to prosecute their war on drugs.

    States wouldn't have jurisdiction for traditional federal violations, such as federal income tax evasion, treason, and antitrust violations, etc.

    Sure they would, if the criminal acts occurred within the state's borders and violated some part of state law. Or are you suggesting a new law to limit state jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction both?

    Wouldn't https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._United_States dictate that certain crimes have exclusive federal jurisdiction?

    That specifically has to do with immigration law, which is always the purview of the federal government

    Perhaps I was unclear, because that was exactly the point I was making. Removal of the dual sovereignty doctrine would allow states to "usurp" only those federal laws where there is substantial overlap. Immigration is one of those areas where there is not.

    Arizona was trying to criminalize being here without papers. SCOTUS said yeah, you don't get to enforce immigration law (which isn't criminal law, btw) because only the federal govt can enforce immigration law.

    That was Arizona trying to step up into a non-criminal area and bring it into their jurisdiction by making it a state crime. Can't do that.

    Your example you gave is different. Some federal crimes are only crimes at the federal level, yes (for instance, taking a minor across state lines to abuse them - though the act of abuse would most likely be a state crime in whatever state it was committed in). "Traditional federal violations" doesn't have much meaning as a category. At any time a state could pass its own antitrust laws, or income tax evasion laws, and then they'd have jurisdiction too if the crime was committed in their state.

    Anyway the point is right now there is crossover but practically I have never heard of a civil rights issue of dual sovereign prosecution until now, when the President's cronies are seeking any possible way they can to slither out of criminal jurisdiction.

    Spoit
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited December 2018
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    kaid wrote: »
    One area of the state federal stuff that probably is most worring to manafort and trump is state/federal tax violations. But in that case it is not a matter of double jeopardy as lying on your state taxes is a distinct crime from lying on your federal forms. Closely related but you are giving your word on both forms that the above information is correct. I can see some cases where this kind of double jeopardy may be an issue though.

    I think banking fraud is another big concern. You commit fraud in NY, the State of NY wants your ass but pretty much all bank fraud has an interstate component now so federal statues also apply...

    Why allow two trials though? Make the split happen at sentencing. You can be tried once, and federal/state/tribal prosecutors can share information or decide amongst themselves where you should be charged. Then when sentencing happens you can have multiple sentences for federal or state or whatever. Ideally the sentencing would also be something that is decided on a per law basis before hand.

    If there is enough of a deference in the criteria for being guilty at a state vs federal level that one trial wouldn't necessarily cover both, then it seems like the crimes are different enough to be tried separately as distinct crimes.

    What if the state, feds, or tribe don't agree on trial tactics, or have slightly different elements to prove (perhaps the state crime requires an intentional mental state while the federal crime requires a knowing one), or don't have equal resources?

    Where do you pick the jury from? In state crimes, it's from the county you're prosecuted in. For federal the pool could be much wider. For tribal it's most likely going to be fellow tribal members.

    "Just have one trial" isn't that easy and definitely stomps all over the idea of states and tribes as separate sovereign entities.

    I mean, that is the state/fed/tribes problem to work out before hand. I don't see why I would trample on the individuals right to not have endless trials just because the agencies can't decide the best course of prosecution. Presumably you would need some laws dictating who gets final say if they can't agree, but I don't think the right answer is to simply let them all have a crack at it separately.

    I also don't see how the current setup is upholding the separate entities any better. Federal laws can and do trump states/tribal laws (when explicitly stated). If the state wants to give a lighter sentence the feds can come in and prosecute them again and give a heavier one. If the state wants to give a heavier sentence, federal law could presumably be created that prohibits this (this one seems less clear to me I guess but cases like United States v. Cardenas-Juarez, 9th Cir. 2006, seem to indicate that the federal laws can establish maximum sentences for crimes).

    Let's please make sure we are talking about criminal laws here in this discussion. When you say federal laws can and do trump state or tribal laws, I believe you're thinking of the doctrine of federal preemption, which is not a doctrine that says a federal criminal statute preempts a state criminal statute, but rather usually refers to federal law as the floor of regulation that states cannot go below.

    Your "well they'll work it out beforehand" really belies a lack of understanding of how a trial works and how much resources go into it - not a dig at you, I just think most people don't understand this. Nor would allowing states and tribes and feds to prosecute as separate sovereigns result in "endless trials." In fact, I'm still looking for evidence of said "endless trial" scenario having happened at any point recently - can anyone find an example?

    So It Goes on
    moniker
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    P.S. US v Cardenas-Juarez appears to involve a federal prosecution, and the court then applying federal statute to determine what the mandatory minimum sentence was and whether defendant could be relieved from it - nothing to do with fed laws trumping state laws, but more to do with what federal law says about sentencing in federal crimes.

«13
Sign In or Register to comment.