Low-Level Crack Offenders Are Not Covered Under First Step Act, Unanimous Supreme Court Says

Low-Level Crack Offenders Are Not Covered Under First Step Act, Unanimous Supreme Court Says

Another 9-Zip from our Textualist/Originalist Supremes!

Looks like none of them were fans of the Left's Court Packing Attack on our Independent Judiciary.

"And another defeat for the" hapless no-talent "Biden Administration at the hands of a unanimous, and in this case rather tart, Court."

The Court Takes Biden To Task pointing out the Senate’s near-unanimous support for the bill that Senator Biden supported and President Biden fought:

“One of those 97 senators was Joseph Robinette Biden. Indeed, Biden helped draft that crack legislation. Another friendly pat-down. Revenge is a dish best served cold after three decades.”

“Justice Sotomayor offers a rebuke of then-Senator Biden. It turns out that the 100:1 ratio was apparently made up without any rationale. What a bunch of malarkey!”

YEOW!

"The majority opinion faulted the Biden Administration for switching positions. Indeed, the criticism was even more pointed because of the late-arriving brief."

Disorganized to the point of disfunction.

OUCH!

UGLY

The 9 Justice Majority "uses harsh language to describe the" Biden Administration's "argument." The Administration's "position is deemed as a "sleight of hand.""

Body Slam!

"The majority opinion was only 8 pages. That is very, very short. It didn't take much space to dispatch the government's position."

Good to see these Administration Idiots getting the dressing down they deserve. This is why we need fair and honest elections. The American People deserve better than this Administration's disorganized mediocrity.

 

Paywall....ouch!

 

There are two links in OP. Use the second one if you have used up your free articles in the first one.

Here: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/06/1...-but-justice-sotomayor-frisks-justice-thomas/

 

Any thoughts on the OP?

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/14/...-act-crack-cocaine-conviction-case/index.html

The actual facts of the story can be found here rahther than the frothing at the mouth interpretation of the OP who bizarly looks at supreme court rulings as a football match with the scores. Obvisouly the law which was bipartisan has a few flaws. This case was brought forth because one of these flaws has a man getting a lesser break on his sentence because he was dealing LESS crack. It didn't seem quite right and the case was brought forth even though this administration does beleive in this law (it is bipartisan) but the supreme court let the lower ruling stand. this is not retribution, message sending, or any such thing from the supreme court just the normal process of law.
Really weird glee on the part of the OP.
I don't get it

 

"Trump-era sentencing reform law doesn't apply to low-level crack cocaine offenders, Supreme Court says"

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/14/poli...-act-crack-cocaine-conviction-case/index.html

"At issue in the case is whether low-level crack-cocaine offenders who were convicted before Congress changed sentencing guidelines in 2010 are eligible for lower sentences under a sentencing reform law passed in 2018."