Author Topic: Supreme Court Cases Thread  (Read 7391 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online BIG APPLE CAT

  • smelly poor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3349
  • slide rule enthusiast
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #175 on: May 24, 2022, 01:53:48 PM »
I’m with SCOTUS on this. I am getting sick and tired of people who are guilty of spending time in prison being set free into the general public just because they “technically” didn’t “commit the crime they were convicted of”
In some ways those people are worse than the ones who were rightly convicted bc now they have a score to settle, and since they probably can’t find a job they’ll have plenty of time to plot out their crimes since they won’t be spending that time picking themselves up by their bootstraps.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 34773
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #176 on: May 24, 2022, 02:07:59 PM »
I’m with SCOTUS on this. I am getting sick and tired of people who are guilty of spending time in prison being set free into the general public just because they “technically” didn’t “commit the crime they were convicted of”
In some ways those people are worse than the ones who were rightly convicted bc now they have a score to settle, and since they probably can’t find a job they’ll have plenty of time to plot out their crimes since they won’t be spending that time picking themselves up by their bootstraps.

Those sandbagging son-of-a-bitches. :angry:

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 15851
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #177 on: May 24, 2022, 03:33:43 PM »
Listen, if you want to stand up for your rights, you should have done it immediately, when you didn't realize they were being violated!

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 39226
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #178 on: May 24, 2022, 03:55:26 PM »
Quote
In 2012 the court ruled that when a state court "substantially" interferes with a defendant's constitutional right to be represented by counsel, the defendant, with a new lawyer, may appeal to federal court to show that he was denied his right to effective counsel. Back then, the majority was 7-to-2, with Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent. On Monday Thomas wrote the majority decision hollowing out that 2012 ruling on behalf of the court's new six-justice conservative super majority.

He said that federal courts may not hear "new evidence" obtained after conviction to show how deficient the trial or appellate lawyer in state court was. To allow such evidence to be presented in federal court, he said, "encourages prisoners to sandbag state courts," depriving the states of "the finality that is essential to both the retributive and deterrent function of criminal law."

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/23/1100852386/supreme-court-hobbles-challenges-by-inmates-based-on-bad-legal-representation

I'm really not sure if Thomas is actually this stupid or if there is some sort of benefit to him if innocent people have to stay in prison or get put to death.

Yeah this is unreal dumb!

Do the other justices not get to review these opinions before they are published? That's patently absurd, looks like some crap written by someone who knows they are stripping someone else's rights.

Offline Justwin

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #179 on: May 24, 2022, 04:36:12 PM »
I don't know a lot about the specifics of these cases, but in general, I come down on the side of making it more difficult for people to be in prison. The criminal justice system should err on the side of letting guilty people go free rather than on the side of innocent people being imprisoned. Anything that provides an avenue for an innocent person to go free should be weighted positively pretty heavily.

Also, the death penalty needs to be eliminated. These cases further illustrate the need for this.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 34773
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #180 on: May 24, 2022, 04:38:33 PM »
If someone in prison has new or previously unseen evidence that is remotely exonerating, there should be a process for that evidence to see a court of law, and it shouldn't matter how many appeals they have already had.

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 39226
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #181 on: May 24, 2022, 05:59:10 PM »
I don't know a lot about the specifics of these cases, but in general, I come down on the side of making it more difficult for people to be in prison. The criminal justice system should err on the side of letting guilty people go free rather than on the side of innocent people being imprisoned. Anything that provides an avenue for an innocent person to go free should be weighted positively pretty heavily.

Also, the death penalty needs to be eliminated. These cases further illustrate the need for this.
Justwin the progressive

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 15851
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #182 on: May 24, 2022, 06:18:43 PM »
I don't know a lot about the specifics of these cases, but in general, I come down on the side of making it more difficult for people to be in prison. The criminal justice system should err on the side of letting guilty people go free rather than on the side of innocent people being imprisoned. Anything that provides an avenue for an innocent person to go free should be weighted positively pretty heavily.

Also, the death penalty needs to be eliminated. These cases further illustrate the need for this.
Justwin the progressive


 :thumbs: And to think, I had to go to law school to gain this perspective.

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20843
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #183 on: June 17, 2022, 08:16:56 AM »

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44603
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #184 on: June 17, 2022, 08:23:20 AM »
#LOL
It's a great day to be a Wildcat and it's a great day to say no to the Pit.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44603
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #185 on: June 17, 2022, 08:26:37 AM »
Imagine actually believing yet another  #blueanon conspiracy theory  while IRL people are plotting to assassinate SC justices. 

#blueanon Deflecto Theater is sadly just getting ramped up. 
It's a great day to be a Wildcat and it's a great day to say no to the Pit.

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20843
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #186 on: June 17, 2022, 08:51:05 AM »
It seems natural to me that an increasingly (at least outwardly appearing) political court would be treated in an increasingly political way. We'll see what else happens for Thomas.

Also, this is one of those PAINFULLY obvious "if the shoe was on the other foot" situations for pubs. They'd be impeaching.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44603
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #187 on: June 17, 2022, 09:01:52 AM »
#painfullyobvious
It's a great day to be a Wildcat and it's a great day to say no to the Pit.

Offline catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 12737
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #188 on: June 17, 2022, 11:07:36 AM »
The court would be better without Thomas on it, but that’s a dangerous path to go down.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44603
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #189 on: June 17, 2022, 11:29:27 AM »
 :lol:
It's a great day to be a Wildcat and it's a great day to say no to the Pit.

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 46774
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #190 on: June 17, 2022, 12:22:08 PM »
The court would be better without Thomas on it, but that’s a dangerous path to go down.

Can't throw a guy off the court for being into fat chicks.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44603
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #191 on: June 17, 2022, 01:21:50 PM »
#blueanon body shaming is rolling at red line levels today

It's a great day to be a Wildcat and it's a great day to say no to the Pit.

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 46774
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #192 on: June 17, 2022, 03:25:35 PM »
#blueanon body shaming is rolling at red line levels today

guilty of calling ginni a tub on gE as charged.  I will also call her a proper weirdo and simple minded dinkconk

Offline Cire

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 17607
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #193 on: June 19, 2022, 10:46:17 AM »
Just found out that she used to be in a cult. Only to get out and then join another


Cautionary tale


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 35967
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #194 on: June 23, 2022, 01:27:54 PM »
?t=H4BuiG-SfvY0EEesdoNKaQ&s=19

Offline catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 12737
    • View Profile
Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #195 on: June 23, 2022, 02:30:20 PM »
They’re clearly smart people. Thomas is probably the only member of the Court you might struggle to find super glowing things about.

There are very good arguments by very smart people for Roe being incorrectly decided.

There are less good arguments for overturning now given the potential damage to stare decisis and the Court’s reputation more generally. But academically it’s not a stretch to get there at all.

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 46774
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #196 on: June 23, 2022, 02:33:24 PM »
They’re clearly smart people. Thomas is probably the only member of the Court you might struggle to find super glowing things about.

There are very good arguments by very smart people for Roe being incorrectly decided.

There are less good arguments for overturning now given the potential damage to stare decisis and the Court’s reputation more generally. But academically it’s not a stretch to get there at all.

AND they were asked in confirmation hearings, when they were under oath, if they thought it should be overturned.  Some of them lied

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 15851
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #197 on: June 23, 2022, 03:23:32 PM »
They’re clearly smart people. Thomas is probably the only member of the Court you might struggle to find super glowing things about.

There are very good arguments by very smart people for Roe being incorrectly decided.

There are less good arguments for overturning now given the potential damage to stare decisis and the Court’s reputation more generally. But academically it’s not a stretch to get there at all.

I remember when stare decisis was a thing. Like when the Chief Justice determined a 9-0 decision was necessary in order to overturn the racist policy established in Plessy v. Ferguson. Now all you need is a divided court voting along ideological lines.

Offline Cire

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 17607
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #198 on: June 23, 2022, 10:11:57 PM »
?s=21&t=UjcxHaVtEqUeQKv6-7juOg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 46774
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #199 on: June 24, 2022, 08:56:20 AM »
alito is such a little whiner in his writing too.  just a total cuck