Go Back   AzBilliards.com > Main Category > Non Pool Related
Reload this Page Double Jeopardy is the law of the land!
Reply
Page 1 of 4 1 23 Last »
 
Share Thread Tools Rate Thread
Double Jeopardy is the law of the land!
Old
  (#1)
ShootingArts
Smorg is giving the 7!
ShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond repute
 
ShootingArts's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 11,130
vCash: 2900
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South of the Border
   
Double Jeopardy is the law of the land! - 06-18-2019, 06:51 AM

The Supreme Court has just ruled that the same crime can be tried in both state and federal court. Not just with different charges, with the exact same charge for the exact same crime!

This seems like such a fundamental change in law that it would rock the nation. Aside from anything else, federal and state caseloads have just been hugely increased. The burden on anyone charged with a crime in federal and state court has just increased hugely in cost and mental strain too. Not enough to prove your innocence once, you must now do it over and over.

Interestingly, the two dissenting opinions came from opposite sides of the Supreme Court. This is some indication that this ruling is basically flawed. The court has ruled that one offense is actually two offenses now. The Supreme Court has just ruled that states and the federal government are equal in this area. It is a huge, even if flawed, victory for states rights. If this equality thing continues then it may be that states have every right to secede from the nation. California could flake off, Texas could leave the union, but what about inland states, can they secede and be an independent nation completely surrounded by the US? Seems like they could, little different from indian reservations.

Many of the founding fathers saw the US as a confederation of strong states with a weaker central government. The main reason that we are a single nation with a strong central government is that our first president was a strong federalist.

Interesting times. I will look forward to further decisions of the Supreme Court with great interest. They have not just cracked the door to state's rights, they have thrown it wide open! Many of the founding fathers envisioned the power to flow from the individual to the state and on to federal government with each party only surrendering specified powers. It seems the Supreme Court just decreed each state is a sovereign power.

Hu
  
Reply With Quote

Old
  (#2)
Black-Balled
He Rides the Skies
Black-Balled has a reputation beyond reputeBlack-Balled has a reputation beyond reputeBlack-Balled has a reputation beyond reputeBlack-Balled has a reputation beyond reputeBlack-Balled has a reputation beyond reputeBlack-Balled has a reputation beyond reputeBlack-Balled has a reputation beyond reputeBlack-Balled has a reputation beyond reputeBlack-Balled has a reputation beyond reputeBlack-Balled has a reputation beyond reputeBlack-Balled has a reputation beyond repute
 
Black-Balled's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 38,644
vCash: 1200
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: This Toilet Earth
  Send a message via AIM to Black-Balled  
06-18-2019, 06:59 AM

I saw that too. It is a big ruling.
  
Reply With Quote
I genuinely wonder
Old
  (#3)
ShootingArts
Smorg is giving the 7!
ShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond repute
 
ShootingArts's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 11,130
vCash: 2900
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South of the Border
   
I genuinely wonder - 06-18-2019, 07:35 AM

I genuinely wonder if the justices themselves considered the impact of the ruling and the statements in some of the concurring opinions. It seems that the status of the states and states rights have been hugely uplifted.

Hu
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4)
ENGLISH!
Banned
ENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 19,489
vCash: 500
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: Jun 2012
   
06-18-2019, 07:51 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShootingArts View Post
The Supreme Court has just ruled that the same crime can be tried in both state and federal court. Not just with different charges, with the exact same charge for the exact same crime!

This seems like such a fundamental change in law that it would rock the nation. Aside from anything else, federal and state caseloads have just been hugely increased. The burden on anyone charged with a crime in federal and state court has just increased hugely in cost and mental strain too. Not enough to prove your innocence once, you must now do it over and over.

Interestingly, the two dissenting opinions came from opposite sides of the Supreme Court. This is some indication that this ruling is basically flawed. The court has ruled that one offense is actually two offenses now. The Supreme Court has just ruled that states and the federal government are equal in this area. It is a huge, even if flawed, victory for states rights. If this equality thing continues then it may be that states have every right to secede from the nation. California could flake off, Texas could leave the union, but what about inland states, can they secede and be an independent nation completely surrounded by the US? Seems like they could, little different from indian reservations.

Many of the founding fathers saw the US as a confederation of strong states with a weaker central government. The main reason that we are a single nation with a strong central government is that our first president was a strong federalist.

Interesting times. I will look forward to further decisions of the Supreme Court with great interest. They have not just cracked the door to state's rights, they have thrown it wide open! Many of the founding fathers envisioned the power to flow from the individual to the state and on to federal government with each party only surrendering specified powers. It seems the Supreme Court just decreed each state is a sovereign power.

Hu
I am not familiar with it, so I am just throwing this out.

If a state law is broken then one is charged & tried. If a Federal law is broken then one is charged & tried.

It would not be the same law that was broken & the charges would not be the same.

We do not need duplicate Laws but it is certainly good to have some common Federal Laws. If the crime is basically the same then if the Feds choose to charge then the states should not want to do the same... unless of course there is the forfeiture of MONEY involved & then the Feds & States will be fighting over which can charge & when as in WE want the First Judgement.

Just some brain farts.

Last edited by ENGLISH!; 06-18-2019 at 11:18 AM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#5)
Black-Balled
He Rides the Skies
Black-Balled has a reputation beyond reputeBlack-Balled has a reputation beyond reputeBlack-Balled has a reputation beyond reputeBlack-Balled has a reputation beyond reputeBlack-Balled has a reputation beyond reputeBlack-Balled has a reputation beyond reputeBlack-Balled has a reputation beyond reputeBlack-Balled has a reputation beyond reputeBlack-Balled has a reputation beyond reputeBlack-Balled has a reputation beyond reputeBlack-Balled has a reputation beyond repute
 
Black-Balled's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 38,644
vCash: 1200
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: This Toilet Earth
  Send a message via AIM to Black-Balled  
06-18-2019, 09:17 AM

You prob should have hit the googles before submitting that post.

Hint: Law vs. offense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ENGLISH! View Post
I am not familiar with it so am just throwing this out.

If a state law if broken then one is charged & tried. If a Federal law is broken then one is charged & tried.

If would not be the same law was broken & the charges would not be the same.

We do not need duplicate Laws but it is certainly good to have some common Federal Laws. If the crime is basically the same then if the Feds choice to charge then the states should not want to do the same... unless of course there is the forfeiture of MONEY involved & then the Feds & States will be fighting over which can charge & when as in WE want the first Judgement.

Just some brain farts.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6)
memikey
Never Has Been
memikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 20,042
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: I'm lost.
   
06-18-2019, 09:29 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShootingArts View Post
The Supreme Court has just ruled that the same crime can be tried in both state and federal court. Not just with different charges, with the exact same charge for the exact same crime!

This seems like such a fundamental change in law that it would rock the nation.


I'm not sure what you've bee reading on this Hu, but you seem to have got this arse about face somehow.

This ruling is not a change in the law. It's the exact opposite of that. With this ruling Scotus has actually refused to change or expand the double jeopardy exceptions embodied in the existing law. They have ruled that the existing exceptions to double jeopardy will stand unchanged. Both State and Feds have had the ability to prosecute the same person for the exact same crimes for decades. This ruling simply upholds that ability.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...united-states/


Mike

Last edited by memikey; 06-18-2019 at 09:42 AM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#7)
LAMas
AzB Silver Member
LAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 32,584
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Los Angeles
   
06-18-2019, 09:33 AM

The 9th Circuit likes it.


dumluk
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#8)
Sofla
AzB Silver Member
Sofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond repute
 
Sofla's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 42,004
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: PNW
   
06-18-2019, 09:33 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShootingArts View Post
The Supreme Court has just ruled that the same crime can be tried in both state and federal court. Not just with different charges, with the exact same charge for the exact same crime!

This seems like such a fundamental change in law that it would rock the nation. Aside from anything else, federal and state caseloads have just been hugely increased. The burden on anyone charged with a crime in federal and state court has just increased hugely in cost and mental strain too. Not enough to prove your innocence once, you must now do it over and over.

Interestingly, the two dissenting opinions came from opposite sides of the Supreme Court. This is some indication that this ruling is basically flawed. The court has ruled that one offense is actually two offenses now. The Supreme Court has just ruled that states and the federal government are equal in this area. It is a huge, even if flawed, victory for states rights. If this equality thing continues then it may be that states have every right to secede from the nation. California could flake off, Texas could leave the union, but what about inland states, can they secede and be an independent nation completely surrounded by the US? Seems like they could, little different from indian reservations.

Many of the founding fathers saw the US as a confederation of strong states with a weaker central government. The main reason that we are a single nation with a strong central government is that our first president was a strong federalist.

Interesting times. I will look forward to further decisions of the Supreme Court with great interest. They have not just cracked the door to state's rights, they have thrown it wide open! Many of the founding fathers envisioned the power to flow from the individual to the state and on to federal government with each party only surrendering specified powers. It seems the Supreme Court just decreed each state is a sovereign power.

Hu
Exactly backwards here.

It is not the new law of the land. It has been the law of the land for a long time, as confirmed in all the case law for decades if not longer.

If the SCOTUS HAD changed this, THAT would have been the huge break with the past. And that is why Justice Thomas framed this as a question of how much to honor stare decisis, because the precedents weighed to keeping this in place as before. (He was not among the two dissenters in the end, turned out.)

That it was a 7-2 decision (with 3 of the liberal side and 4 of the conservative side) tends to indicate it is not a flawed decision. It was not a narrow 5-4, but a decisive margin.

However, as much as I have known the argument why it is NOT double jeopardy for a long time (it has to be considered not to be double jeopardy, or else it is forbidden by the COTUS), I was intrigued to find Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil Gorsuch joining together in dissents (although writing their own and not joining with each other).

So I read the summary of their dissent arguments, and I admit I found them persuasive. The argument to keep it and why it is not double jeopardy manages to legalistically thread the needle and not violate the letter of the Constitution. But both dissents explain how it violates the spirit of the Constitution, and almost certainly would offend the Founders and Framers and their understanding of the issue.

So why are the others who claim they are Originalists (other than Gorsuch), and especially Thomas, failing to see that clear point? Frankly, I'm sure they do see it, because it is unmissable.


The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.

― Garry Kasparov

... the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts.

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#9)
Sofla
AzB Silver Member
Sofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond repute
 
Sofla's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 42,004
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: PNW
   
06-18-2019, 09:41 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black-Balled View Post
You prob should have hit the googles before submitting that post.

Hint: Law vs. offense.
I see your point, but ENGLISH has 7 members of the Supreme Court agreeing with his 'naive' take on this, including CJ Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh (and Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan).

One offense may violate both federal and state laws, and if so, the two sovereigns, each with jurisdiction, bring charges on the basis of the separate law violations (albeit on the same offense).


The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.

― Garry Kasparov

... the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts.

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#10)
ENGLISH!
Banned
ENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 19,489
vCash: 500
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: Jun 2012
   
06-18-2019, 11:04 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black-Balled View Post
You prob should have hit the googles before submitting that post.

Hint: Law vs. offense.
So... one does not break the law... instead they commit an offense against the law?

It seems that the subject matter was per offense & not multiple offenses.

Your brevity only causes confusion as to what exactly were you referring.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#11)
ENGLISH!
Banned
ENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 19,489
vCash: 500
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: Jun 2012
   
06-18-2019, 11:16 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sofla View Post
I see your point, but ENGLISH has 7 members of the Supreme Court agreeing with his 'naive' take on this, including CJ Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh (and Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan).

One offense may violate both federal and state laws, and if so, the two sovereigns, each with jurisdiction, bring charges on the basis of the separate law violations (albeit on the same offense).
I am not nave about such. I said that If the Feds charge then the State or States "should not" WANT to do so... Unless it involves them getting MONEY. Why spend tax payers money at the state level to prosecute someone who is being prosecuted at the Federal Level?

I was NOT talking about the ability to do so, but the desire.

Also, one "action" may violate two or more State laws or 2 or more Federal laws... vs a single offense against two sperate but like laws, one Federal & one State.

There are too many(of a small group) who want to nitpick & then name call.

First "appearances" can be deceptive without the intention to be so.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#12)
LAMas
AzB Silver Member
LAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 32,584
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Los Angeles
   
06-18-2019, 11:22 AM

Are you referring to the Johnny Archer of NPR?


dumluk
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#13)
ENGLISH!
Banned
ENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond reputeENGLISH! has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 19,489
vCash: 500
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: Jun 2012
   
06-18-2019, 12:04 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAMas View Post
Are you referring to the Johnny Archer of NPR?
Yeah, well. I think I would rather play Johnny on a table that was just recovered with old nappy cloth that raveled. At least Johnny is not just trying to find or create issues with his playing partner or opponent.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#14)
Sofla
AzB Silver Member
Sofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond repute
 
Sofla's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 42,004
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: PNW
   
06-18-2019, 12:30 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ENGLISH! View Post
So... one does not break the law... instead they commit an offense against the law?

It seems that the subject matter was per offense & not multiple offenses.

Your brevity only causes confusion as to what exactly were you referring.
Plus, one offending circumstance may break several laws at the same time (even restricting it to either federal or state laws). Piling up the varying charges for the trial is called 'throwing the book' at a defendant.


The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.

― Garry Kasparov

... the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts.

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#15)
Sofla
AzB Silver Member
Sofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond repute
 
Sofla's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 42,004
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: PNW
   
06-18-2019, 12:33 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ENGLISH! View Post
I am not nave about such. I said that If the Feds charge then the State or States "should not" WANT to do so... Unless it involves them getting MONEY. Why spend tax payers money at the state level to prosecute someone who is being prosecuted at the Federal Level?

I was NOT talking about the ability to do so, but the desire.

Also, one "action" may violate two or more State laws or 2 or more Federal laws... vs a single offense against two sperate but like laws, one Federal & one State.

There are too many(of a small group) who want to nitpick & then name call.

First "appearances" can be deceptive without the intention to be so.
I wasn't being critical, which is why I put 'naive' in the scarequotes. It's just that you said you hadn't looked into it right at the top of your reply.

Just using common sense, you arrived at the 'correct' view (per this and many other court rulings).


The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.

― Garry Kasparov

... the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts.

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 1 of 4 1 23 Last »

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.