The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[SCOTUS] thread we dreaded updates for because RIP RBG
silence1186
Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered User regular
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:
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
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
silence1186 on
+1
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/us/politics/supreme-court-excessive-fines-land-rover.html
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.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Theres a chance Roberts convinces them to pull their punch of course
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.
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
Iguanas raise some good statutory points, but salamanders should ultimately prevail.
https://theweek.com/speedreads/810576/scotus-reconsidering-170year-precedent-double-jeopardy
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.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
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.
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
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 $1. Feds serve you papers? Go down to the state courthouse and confess.
Or vice versa.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Then they pay a 1$ 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.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
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.
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 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.
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.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
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
States wouldn't have jurisdiction for traditional federal violations, such as federal income tax evasion, treason, and antitrust violations, etc.
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.
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?
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...
Wouldn't https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._United_States dictate that certain crimes have exclusive federal jurisdiction?
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.
That specifically has to do with immigration law, which is always the purview of the federal government
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.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
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.
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).
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.
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?