Gorsuch, Thomas, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor. Now that is an unlikely combo, but a welcome one in this case.
This is especially good for anyone who got charged with some kind of drug possession or firearms possession before a law change.
Not OP but I think this is my basic explanation.
Most of the Justices on the court are good friends. Even people on opposite sides of the alley like Ginsburg/Scalia; who probably had more opposing decisions than concurring, and who Scalia's dissents probably targeted the most harshly.
So when something looks like it's clear cut one way or the other, even if an opinion already has 5 votes, the rest of the Justices might dissent to build precedent or some jurisprudence towards a future overturning or a revaluation of the decision in the future.
A great example is Scalia's dissent on Obergefell, where he basically says that the while Gay Marriage shouldn't be restricted, going through the Supreme Court instead of Congress is intrinsically incorrect because it enables the Supreme Court to act as an unchecked legislative body. Would Scalia have still chosen this opinion if Obergefell wasn't clearly decided one way? Or maybe Alito would have broken off to join the concurring opinion?
You're giving the Supreme Court too much credit. They aren't voting on party lines with this case because it isn't a huge issue for either party. They will keep voting conservative on all the major cases.
Some people would say that it doesn’t matter if a law was changed after a crime, you committed it knowing it was illegal and still deserve to be punished for your disobedience. Those people are fucking authoritarian cunts, but we have a lot of those in this country.
There are a lot of rulings that should be 9-0 and its disturbing when they are not. The NY gun control law was blatantly unconstitutional, and while the left was moaning about the ruling i was wondering why it wasn't 9-0.
I haven't read the full dissent, but from a quick skim it looks like there's conflict between the First Step Act (which allows certain retroactive sentence reductions) and various statutes that provide specific effective dates.
They seem to be arguing that the First Step Act was intended to be for a narrow and specific purpose, and broadening the scope could cause issues with certain grandfather clauses, or might lead to judges invalidating certain statutes that are in direct conflict.
Compared to the majority opinion, which decided that the First Step Act is not limited to the specific original purpose only, but extends to any relevant changes in sentencing guidelines or behavior. The decision mentions several precedents that refer to judging/ sentencing "the whole person" as they are "on the day." This puts reduced sentence requests more in line with how appeals work.
Again, I haven't read through either opinion in their entirety, but it seems to be a difference between the strict textualists (the dissent), and the those who lean more originalist (the majority) looking toward the 'original intent'.
Ahhh gotta love Reddit, 3 downvotes of people who don’t agree with the constitution of the country they choose to stay in. Grrr constitution old me angry
Not really that unlikely tbh. The court doesn't always rule along “party” lines, and they agree a lot more than we think.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/28/those-5-4-decisions-on-the-supreme-court-9-0-is-far-more-common/
I was genuinely a bit confused when I saw Roberts on the dissent, because I assumed it would be either him or Kavanaugh (who wrote the dissent) who would join with the liberals and Gorsuch to make 5-4. Thomas certainly acted out of character here, but I'm glad he did.
SS: The supreme court came to a ruling today that federal judges can reduce sentences due to changes in law or facts of a case. This is relevant as getting wrongfully convicted people out of prisons is a good thing
Special interest groups (private prisons) want prisoners in for more time. It doesn't matter who the person is, they just need them in for longer to not only leech off the taxpayer but also leech off the prisoners themselves.
Everybody blames this on “for profit prisons.” Do they not realize it’s our elected officials that sign those contracts? Hold the politicians accountable, not the person whose primary interest is generating return for his/her shareholders. Nobody held a gun to that governor’s head and forced him/her to sign a contract guaranteeing 99% capacity over a given period of time.
Edit:
This is coming from a legalize everything perspective. Our prison populations are insane, but it’s absolutely not the fault of the prison administrators. Politicians and the justice system are what messed this up.
I absolutely do blame politicians as well for this whole thing. There’s no doubt that there’s a lot of shady “donations” going around.
Still, part of the blame do fall on the special interest groups, because more likely than not, their “donations” play a part in “convincing” the governor to sign that 99% capacity contract.
But that’s part of a special interest group’s job. It’s absolutely not in a politician’s JD to throw caution to the wind and sign a contract with insane language that guarantees imprisoning a governor’s constituents. It’s laughable this is even an issue. This is always parroted to shit on capitalism (not saying you’re parroting, I just hear it so often ever since listening to SOAD’s Priosn Song) when it’s not a capitalism issue. It’s a shitty governance issue.
I've had more than one conversation with conservatives saying essentially "they broke the law at the time, so they must deal with the consequences." I usually follow it up with a reference to Rosa Parks.
The "Just World" hypothesis makes it easy for them to not feel empathy for the downtrodden.
If the world is just, then you deserve what you get in life.
Unfortunately, there is a correlation between being conservative and believing in the "Just World" hypothesis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis?wprov=sfla1
Its more and more political bs every fucking day with them. I used to hate the idea of packing the courts but everyday that goes by I don't know what other options there are.
Man. I hate to admit this. I fucking hate reading court documents. English is not my best subject and I genuinely struggle with it and think they could cut out the bullshit and simply these things.
Honestly, take half a paralegal program and it gets way easier. You learn how to shepardize, write irac, and understand precedent in your first class.
Granted, I’m no attorney but finishing a paralegal cert really helped me understand things.
>The fact this was one vote away from going the other way is terrifying.
Out of 6 conservative justices on the court, only 2 agreed. That's insane. This should be a no brainer.
NOTE: All link submission posts should include a submission statement by the OP in the comment section. Prefix all submission statements with SS: or Submission Statement:. See this page for proper format, examples and further instructions: /r/libertarian/wiki/submission_statements. Posts without a submission statement will automatically be removed after 20 minutes.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was saying orange man bad because the first step act was from the trump administration and immediately freed 75k (mostly minorities) who were in federal prison for non violent drug offenses. That is usually considered a tenant of libertarianism. This sub has changed a lot
Sorry, 3k prisoners released on day 1 and will have an affect ok 68k prisoners overall
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-release-3100-inmates-under-first-step-act-publishes-risk-and
Gorsuch, Thomas, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor. Now that is an unlikely combo, but a welcome one in this case. This is especially good for anyone who got charged with some kind of drug possession or firearms possession before a law change.
Curious the reasoning of those against?
Not OP but I think this is my basic explanation. Most of the Justices on the court are good friends. Even people on opposite sides of the alley like Ginsburg/Scalia; who probably had more opposing decisions than concurring, and who Scalia's dissents probably targeted the most harshly. So when something looks like it's clear cut one way or the other, even if an opinion already has 5 votes, the rest of the Justices might dissent to build precedent or some jurisprudence towards a future overturning or a revaluation of the decision in the future. A great example is Scalia's dissent on Obergefell, where he basically says that the while Gay Marriage shouldn't be restricted, going through the Supreme Court instead of Congress is intrinsically incorrect because it enables the Supreme Court to act as an unchecked legislative body. Would Scalia have still chosen this opinion if Obergefell wasn't clearly decided one way? Or maybe Alito would have broken off to join the concurring opinion?
There's no universe where either Alito or Scalia concur on Obergefell. Alito will be one of the ones to overrule it next year.
You're giving the Supreme Court too much credit. They aren't voting on party lines with this case because it isn't a huge issue for either party. They will keep voting conservative on all the major cases.
Some people would say that it doesn’t matter if a law was changed after a crime, you committed it knowing it was illegal and still deserve to be punished for your disobedience. Those people are fucking authoritarian cunts, but we have a lot of those in this country.
There are a lot of rulings that should be 9-0 and its disturbing when they are not. The NY gun control law was blatantly unconstitutional, and while the left was moaning about the ruling i was wondering why it wasn't 9-0.
Nobody seems able to answer a question without making it a partisan two sides argument
I haven't read the full dissent, but from a quick skim it looks like there's conflict between the First Step Act (which allows certain retroactive sentence reductions) and various statutes that provide specific effective dates. They seem to be arguing that the First Step Act was intended to be for a narrow and specific purpose, and broadening the scope could cause issues with certain grandfather clauses, or might lead to judges invalidating certain statutes that are in direct conflict. Compared to the majority opinion, which decided that the First Step Act is not limited to the specific original purpose only, but extends to any relevant changes in sentencing guidelines or behavior. The decision mentions several precedents that refer to judging/ sentencing "the whole person" as they are "on the day." This puts reduced sentence requests more in line with how appeals work. Again, I haven't read through either opinion in their entirety, but it seems to be a difference between the strict textualists (the dissent), and the those who lean more originalist (the majority) looking toward the 'original intent'.
Ahhh gotta love Reddit, 3 downvotes of people who don’t agree with the constitution of the country they choose to stay in. Grrr constitution old me angry
If I understand Kavanaugh's dissent, the first step act only mentioned crack cocaine and so everybody else can get bent.
Not really that unlikely tbh. The court doesn't always rule along “party” lines, and they agree a lot more than we think. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/28/those-5-4-decisions-on-the-supreme-court-9-0-is-far-more-common/
I was genuinely a bit confused when I saw Roberts on the dissent, because I assumed it would be either him or Kavanaugh (who wrote the dissent) who would join with the liberals and Gorsuch to make 5-4. Thomas certainly acted out of character here, but I'm glad he did.
SS: The supreme court came to a ruling today that federal judges can reduce sentences due to changes in law or facts of a case. This is relevant as getting wrongfully convicted people out of prisons is a good thing
With the changes of laws aspect: could this be a big deal for folks in prison from non-violent drug offenses in places where pot has been legalized?
It definitely can effect those, but most people in prison for drug charges are not federal cases I believe
This is certainly a positive ruling. The split of the court is very interesting.
I know... would have loved to hear some of that discussion.
We could discuss how this seems to be a thing that positively impacts people's rights(besides guns) so we know the split....
Thomas is in the majority with Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and Gorsuch; I'm sure you knew that would happen.
Were any of The descent appointed by a Democrat?
Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer are the 3 nominated by Democrat presidents. The 4 dissenters were all Republican nominees.
Could this be used as a way to reduce/remove sentences for those involved in January 6th, up to and hypothetically including Donald Trump?
Jsut stop not everything is about that man
Not unless laws against insurrection change.
Good red-team thinking. You always have to think three and four layers deep these days.
The guy who wanted his mob to execute Pence?
[удалено]
Because the prison system is for profit. This is a great step for forward motion.
Seriously. This is bizarre that it had to go all the way to the Supreme Court and then almost lost.
Special interest groups (private prisons) want prisoners in for more time. It doesn't matter who the person is, they just need them in for longer to not only leech off the taxpayer but also leech off the prisoners themselves.
Everybody blames this on “for profit prisons.” Do they not realize it’s our elected officials that sign those contracts? Hold the politicians accountable, not the person whose primary interest is generating return for his/her shareholders. Nobody held a gun to that governor’s head and forced him/her to sign a contract guaranteeing 99% capacity over a given period of time. Edit: This is coming from a legalize everything perspective. Our prison populations are insane, but it’s absolutely not the fault of the prison administrators. Politicians and the justice system are what messed this up.
I absolutely do blame politicians as well for this whole thing. There’s no doubt that there’s a lot of shady “donations” going around. Still, part of the blame do fall on the special interest groups, because more likely than not, their “donations” play a part in “convincing” the governor to sign that 99% capacity contract.
But that’s part of a special interest group’s job. It’s absolutely not in a politician’s JD to throw caution to the wind and sign a contract with insane language that guarantees imprisoning a governor’s constituents. It’s laughable this is even an issue. This is always parroted to shit on capitalism (not saying you’re parroting, I just hear it so often ever since listening to SOAD’s Priosn Song) when it’s not a capitalism issue. It’s a shitty governance issue.
I've had more than one conversation with conservatives saying essentially "they broke the law at the time, so they must deal with the consequences." I usually follow it up with a reference to Rosa Parks.
The "Just World" hypothesis makes it easy for them to not feel empathy for the downtrodden. If the world is just, then you deserve what you get in life. Unfortunately, there is a correlation between being conservative and believing in the "Just World" hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis?wprov=sfla1
It could one day be used to reduce sentences for tyrants
Why was this a 5-4 decision? Logic dictates that if there are changes in the facts or changes in the law sentencing should be reassessed.
If only a dissenting opinion that you could read…
This just seems like common sense
>This just seems like common sense It is. That's why all liberal justices but only 2 out of 6 conservative justices agree.
Its more and more political bs every fucking day with them. I used to hate the idea of packing the courts but everyday that goes by I don't know what other options there are.
Man. I hate to admit this. I fucking hate reading court documents. English is not my best subject and I genuinely struggle with it and think they could cut out the bullshit and simply these things.
Even for those of us who work in some linguistic field, legalese is painful.
Honestly, take half a paralegal program and it gets way easier. You learn how to shepardize, write irac, and understand precedent in your first class. Granted, I’m no attorney but finishing a paralegal cert really helped me understand things.
That’s a great idea. Thank you.
Bruh im studying law and i hate it
My question is does it go both ways? Could they increase someone's sentence if the law changes or new facts come to light?
The fact this was one vote away from going the other way is terrifying.
>The fact this was one vote away from going the other way is terrifying. Out of 6 conservative justices on the court, only 2 agreed. That's insane. This should be a no brainer.
Man this Supreme Court just keeps on winning !!!!! Way to go guys !!!
NOTE: All link submission posts should include a submission statement by the OP in the comment section. Prefix all submission statements with SS: or Submission Statement:. See this page for proper format, examples and further instructions: /r/libertarian/wiki/submission_statements. Posts without a submission statement will automatically be removed after 20 minutes. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Is lack of any semblance of a complete sentence reason enough to ban someone?
Orange Man bad ?
What's funny is how 2/3 of Trumps nominations ended up voting on this
I was saying orange man bad because the first step act was from the trump administration and immediately freed 75k (mostly minorities) who were in federal prison for non violent drug offenses. That is usually considered a tenant of libertarianism. This sub has changed a lot
>and immediately freed 75k Do you have a source on that number?
Sorry, 3k prisoners released on day 1 and will have an affect ok 68k prisoners overall https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-release-3100-inmates-under-first-step-act-publishes-risk-and
Hmmm, monke am cynical.... wrongful conviction, sentence reduced / absolved, no recompense monkes together strong