Notable Supreme Court Cases & Rulings

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by waltky, Mar 22, 2012.

  1. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    29,496
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Plea bargaining becomes a whole new ballgame...
    :shock:
    Supreme Court Makes Landmark Ruling On Plea Deals
    Mar. 21, 2012 - WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled for the first time Wednesday that the guarantee of effective legal representation applies to plea-bargain agreements, significantly expanding the constitutional rights of defendants as they move through the criminal-justice system.
     
  2. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    29,496
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The David vs. Goliath couple trump the EPA...
    :cool:
    Supreme Court sides with Idaho property owners over EPA
    March 21, 2012 | WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has come forcefully down on the side of an Idaho couple in its fight against the Environmental Protection Agency, unanimously ruling Wednesday that the couple can challenge an EPA order to stop construction of their home on property designated a wetland.
     
  3. Phil

    Phil Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't get it. How do I-the defendant-know about deals the prosecutor offered my attorney if they never tell me? Even the specific case mentioned in the article involved a guess about what might have happened, a stupid guess but a guess nevertheless.
    I think it's usually 50-50 whether a defendant would suffer more if a trial followed. I pleaded guilty to a crime I didn't commit because I was about to lose my job for sneaking off to court every three weeks to wait for a hearing.
     
  4. PatrickT

    PatrickT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    16,557
    Likes Received:
    387
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Plea bargaining should be prohibited. Over-charging should be prohibited.

    Plea bargaining harms society, harms the victim, harms all future victims of that criminal, and benefits only the criminals. Well, it benefits the attorney for both sides but they're covered by the term criminals.
     
  5. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    29,496
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Granny hopes dem lib'ral, activist judges don't side with the terrorists...
    :bomb:
    Supreme Court considers taking up anti-terror laws
    May 21, 2012 WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court, after a four-year break from terrorism issues, is set to decide as soon as today whether to again take up constitutional challenges to anti-terrorism laws involving wiretapping and the Guantanamo prisoners.
     
  6. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    29,496
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Say what?? They never heard of fraud or misrepresentation???...
    :omfg:
    Justices dismiss law making lying about military honors a crime
    June 28th, 2012 - The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a federal law making it a crime to falsely claim military medals earned.
     
  7. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    29,496
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Scotus okays stem cell research...
    :cool:
    Supreme Court won't stop embryonic stem cell research
    January 7, 2013 WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court won't stop the government's funding of embryonic stem cell research, despite some researchers' complaints that the work relies on destroyed human embryos.
    See also:

    High court rejects Medicare challenge
    January 7, 2013 WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has turned away a challenge from former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and other Social Security recipients who say they have the right to reject Medicare in favor of continuing health coverage from private insurers.
     
  8. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am all for more rights and protection of the accused, but it seems the Supreme Court has been overextending its authority recently. What exactly are the limits to the power of the Supreme Court?
     
  9. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    29,496
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Anders wrote: I am all for more rights and protection of the accused, but it seems the Supreme Court has been overextending its authority recently. What exactly are the limits to the power of the Supreme Court?

    Good question...

    ... under our system of checks and balances...

    ... supposedly the other two branches can get together and overturn a Scotus ruling by passing legislation to negate its effect...

    ... however, in my lifetime I can't recall that ever happening...

    ... probably because they mainly stick to matters of constitutional law...

    ... which gives them the last say in what is constitutional...

    ... and what is not...

    ... which gives them more ability to check the other two branches of gov't.

    ... than the other way around.
    :wink:
     
  10. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    29,496
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Searches limited to immediate vicinity when suspect not home...
    :cool:
    High court limits detention powers in searches
    19 Feb.`13 WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has limited the power of police to detain people who are not at home when their residence is to be searched.
     
  11. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,766
    Likes Received:
    871
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Personally, as a libertarian, I oppose plea bargains as they are based upon coercion by the prosecution to obtain a conviction. Over 90% of all criminal convictions are the result of a plea bargains and in all cases coercion exists. The perfect example of this is the Tommy Chong conviction.

    http://old.post-gazette.com/localnews/20030912chong0912p5.asp

    Federal agents actually used entrapment to arrest Tommy Chong and then threatened to prosecute his wife and his son if he refused to plead guilty. Faced with the possibility of his wife and son being sent to prison he was coerced into pleading guilty as opposed to fighting his own case based upon entrapment. That was pure BS and violated his legal Rights to a fair trial.

    I also believe that the 2nd degree murder charges against George Zimmerman are an attempt to obtain a conviction for the lesser crime of aggravated assault. Zimmerman is faced with the possibility of 20 years or more in prison if convicted of 2nd Degree Murder but would probably only receive about 5 years if he plea bargains this down to aggravated assault. That's one hell of a choice to have to make. Fight it and possibly lose and go to jail for over 20 years or plea bargain for a much shorter sentence.

    It would be my position that pleading guilty to a lesser crime should not be allowed nor should the prosecution of others be dropped in a plea bargain deal. The crime should be established properly by the prosecution and coercion should never be allowed such as was the situation in the Tommy Chong case.

    A person should not be subjected to "greater punishment" because they choose to oppose the prosecution in court.
     
  12. Phil

    Phil Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    This is fascinating. Breyer has finally done something important and he had to side with Breyer and Alito to do it. Clarence Thomas has seniority on the losing side of a 6-3 decision. That might be the first time in his career that he has had seniority on either side even in defeat. He chose correctly in letting Breyer write the dissent. If Breyer could have persuaded any of the women to come over he might have ended up in the majority, making it the high point of both Breyer and Thomas' careers. Watch and see if they collaborate again in the future-if only to make their careers memorable for something.
    Meanwhile Roberts' real motivation in letting Obamacare through may be coming to light. By carving his decision so carefully he may have stolen the hearts of Sotomayor and Kagan and will have them on his side in many controversial cases in the future.
    As usual Kennedy gets to write the big decision, because whenever he agrees with Roberts they win.
    this may also mean that Alito is getting ready to break off from Roberts and possibly overthrow scalia as the voice of conservatism on the court. Scaia is almost 20 years older than Alito so Alito can expect to inherit that mantle, but seizing it prematurely in a coup might make for high drama.
    This decision appears to be written so narrowly that it will not change the lives of any police officers, just give defense attorneys one more small point to stall the case and increase their income by a few thousand dollars a few times per year. (that's the purpose of most laws anyway.)
     
  13. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    29,496
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Court pondering if allowing DNA on those not convicted is a violation of the 5th amendment...
    :confusion:
    Court takes up question of arrestee DNA sampling
    Feb 26,`13 WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday struggled with what one of the justices called its most important criminal procedure case in decades, whether to let police take DNA from those arrested, but not convicted, in hopes of using it to solve old cases.
     
  14. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    29,496
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Suit over FISA thrown out...
    :confusion:
    Justices block lawsuit over foreign intelligence surveillance
    February 26th, 2013 - The Supreme Court rejected an effort by a group of attorneys, journalists and others to proceed with a lawsuit over the federal government's sweeping electronic monitoring of foreigners suspected of terrorism or spying.
     
  15. Phil

    Phil Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    So it looks like the conservatives on the court are giving a liberal Presidential administration the right to take away the liberties liberals have given. This is the problem with political labels. Liberalism has not seen the light, only the way to get what they want by using the confused logic of conservatives against them. They already achieved this with the concept of stare decisis, which forces conservatives who hold to it to uphold past liberal court decisions while leaving liverals free to expand those same decisions.
    The other case is tricky, it might prompt officers to charge everyone they arrest with an outrageous false charge just so they can collect his DNA and find out if he ever really did something bad. That would be bad even though we'll solve many crimes.
     
  16. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    29,496
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    More on Clapper v. Amnesty International, No. 11-1025...
    :confusion:
    Justices Turn Back Challenge to Broader U.S. Eavesdropping
    February 26, 2013 WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned back a challenge to a federal law that broadened the government’s power to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails.
     
  17. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    29,496
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Supremes takin' another look at Section 5 of Voting Rights Act of `65...
    :confusion:
    US Supreme Court Reviews Key Civil Rights Law
    February 27, 2013 WASHINGTON — A key civil rights law from the 1960’s that helped ensure minorities could vote is now under review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
     
  18. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    29,496
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Granny says ya s'posed to be a citizen to vote in our `lections...
    :grandma:
    Top US Court Weighs Voter Law Against Illegal Immigrants
    March 18, 2013 WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Monday on whether the state of Arizona has the right to craft its own voting laws to prevent illegal immigrants from casting ballots, a process critics say opens the door to discrimination against legal voters.
     
  19. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,766
    Likes Received:
    871
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fraud and misrepresentation are only relevant if a person profits from the fraud or misrepresentation in which case it would be a civil and not a criminal act. The person "defrauded by misrepresentation" is able to seek compensation and even punative damages in a civil lawsuit under current law.
     
  20. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,766
    Likes Received:
    871
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When it comes to the protections of our inalienable Rights I actually have a problem with the "majority" vote criteria used by the US Supreme Court. I expressed those concerns in another thread.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/civil...amendment-protect-our-inalienable-rights.html

    It is my belief that no law or action in dispute should be ruled "constitutional" unless all of the Supreme Court justices agree that it is constitutional. Whenever we see a decision that is disputable it always relates to a split decision by the US Supreme Court where the arguments by the disseniting justices have merit.

    We can always live without a law or action of dubious constitutionality and the fact that any Supreme Court Justice would oppose the law or action establishes doubt as to the constitutionality of the law or action. The US Supreme Court should be required to affirm the constitutionality of any law or action by unanimous consent for the protections of the Rights of the Person in the United States. It is a high standard but when it comes to our Rights and the authority of government it should require this high standard. Split decisions compromise our inalienable Rights.
     

Share This Page