Is it just me?

[Derf Nosneb]

Some of you have only been posting on click bait articles to share and open a conversation.

But has anyone else been watching what SCOTUS has been doing lately. We had a string of 9-0 and 6-3 in Americas favor. The thing I have noticed is the number of overturns on cases out of the 9th Circuit.

Maybe just maybe going into this weekend we can discuss things that really are important to all of us...

[WOSdrummer99]

I noticed they voted 6-3 for Arizona voting laws. And bidens comment was congress needs to pass more laws.

What was the unanimous decision?

[tvc184]

34 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

I noticed they voted 6-3 for Arizona voting laws. And bidens comment was congress needs to pass more laws.

What was the unanimous decision?

They were a couple of unanimous decisions lately. Being in law-enforcement I really noticed Lange v. CA.

What I find really interesting in this one is that I don’t think it says what people think it says.

In a very brief statement of what happened, the police tried to stop a guy for a couple of traffic citations and he drove into his garage. They followed him into the garage and issued him a couple of citations. Was that unconstitutional?

The interesting part from my opinion since I have read hundreds of cases, the  Supreme Court sometimes issues a very narrow ruling and people think that is a final say in all cases. Many time it’s just guidance and very seldom is a bright line rule.

It has long been thought that anytime the police are in a pursuit, it is automatically an emergency circumstance, in the past that has pretty much been through. An emergency or exigent circumstance generally relieves the police the requirement to get a warrant (that is an interesting discussion in itself and in such forums as this, I find a lot of people have no clue about court cases and warrants not being needed). In this case the court issued a 9-0 decision, overturning the case… but did not exactly say that the police were wrong. They pretty much said, there are reasons you can follow someone into a home even for a misdemeanor and that 9th circuit did not answer those questions. They simply fell back to the ruling that a pursuit is automatically an emergency. So we are sending it back down to the 9th  circuit to determine if it fits our decision.

I think that some people will see this decision and say that the police cannot pursue  you into a home for a misdemeanor but that is absolutely not what they said. They said the court has to make a determination because it is not always an “emergency”, what are the facts in each particular case. Then there is the issue that in California a citation is not considered a crime but an “infraction” whereas in a state like Texas, a citation is an arrestable offense just as if it was capital murder.

[tvc184]

In an 8-1 decision The Supreme Court ruled in Mahanoy School District v. Levy that off-campus actions by a student (cheerleader candidate) not on school time or at a school function, did not give the school authority to take action. Basically the First Amendment protects a student away from school. But like the last case I noted, not so fast.

On the face of it it looks like a very clear ruling that anything you do away from school on your own time, the school has no authority. But when you read the case that is not what it said. In this case the girl did not make the cheerleading squad and made a Snapchat comment to a friend in a private conversation, said screw the school, screw cheerleading, screw softball, etc…. Except she use the F bomb in place of “screw”. I think she was on the JV cheerleading team, did not make the varsity  and the school kicked her off the JV team because of those comments.

In the 8 - 1 decision the Supreme Court said that they violated her rights. Again on the face of it it looks like you could make any comment you wish away from school. But then you read the actual decision. In this case the Supreme Court noted that she did not make any threats, no racial slurs, did not directly name any person or even the school. It was just a general of a comment about to screw this and screw that. They ruled that I was absolutely her First Amendment rights and the school had no authority to punish her because of that. It did not negate the school’s ability to punish a person however in such a case. The court simply drew a very narrow authority. If the comment would have named the school or made racial slurs or threatened anyone AND call say significant disruption of school activities, the school might still hold the authority to take action against her. In the actual trial the school brought up that in algebra class her comments were discussed for 5 to 10 minutes for a couple of days and that was it. So the schools significant disruption in school function was one class discussing something for a few minutes and then moving on. That is absolutely a bogus excuse for a significant disruption. The school also brought up that one girl was offended by the comments. That is the very essence of the First Amendment, you can upset people. While this is completely the correct ruling in this situation, the Court very clearly left the option for a school to take action against someone even for an off-campus comment but it had to be significant in disruption of a school function. 

[tvc184]

Another unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court the session was US v. Palomar-Santiago.

In 1990 Palomar was given permanent resident status in the USA. 1991 however he was convicted of a felony DUI and deported under the law because it was considered at that time an aggravated felony and a crime of violence. A couple of years later an appeals court ruled that felony DUI should not be considered an aggravated offense under the immigration laws. Palomar later return to the United States without applying for a re-entry. Once you have been deported that is a felony. He was then indicted for illegal reentry. His appeal of the indictment for re-entry was that the reason he was deported was later found to be unlawful.

Here is the problem. The USA immigration law says that you’re such a case, the person has to file an appeal and prove three things. That is not a court opinion, that is statutory law. In other words he had a ride to file an appeal but he did not and just re-entered without permission. His lawyer being said, yes but the reason he was deported  was invalid so we don’t have to follow the law. The unanimous Supreme Court said no, the law is the law and there’s a proper way to do it and you did not do it properly. Palomar made an illegal reentry without filing the proper paperwork and then the 9th Circuit simply said he didn’t have to follow the law because of a prior ruling that DUI was not aggravated. Again the Supreme Court said no the law still stands and he has to follow the law.

[Derf Nosneb]

Thanks for the comments tvc184, what I find interesting is many of the headlines concerning these rulings are very misleading unless you actually read the entire article or the actual ruling which you so eloquently pointed out.

[Hagar]

What confuses most of us, me included, most (all/many?) cases are based on certain particular circumstances and not an “iron clad forever” ruling of the subject.  The News Media rarely helps with their reporting.

I am encouraged by recent rulings, but concerned the Left’s reaction is to Stack the Court.

[tvc184]

4 hours ago, Hagar said:

What confuses most of us, me included, most (all/many?) cases are based on certain particular circumstances and not an “iron clad forever” ruling of the subject.  The News Media rarely helps with their reporting.

I am encouraged by recent rulings, but concerned the Left’s reaction is to Stack the Court.

It is that way because it is hard in an appeals case to address every one of 100 different variables. The courts are reluctant to issue Bright-Line Rules although they do in some cases. In BLR they issue a, this is the rule and that’s that!!

Typically cases are based at the local level (trial court) and depend on phrases such as totality of the circumstances, beyond a reasonable doubt, reasonable suspicion and objective reasonableness. Those are for a jury or a judge to determine. That is why we typically have 12 jurors on felony cases and they all have to agree on guilt. At some point humans have to make the determination and we generally err on the side of caution.  In most cases that is the problem with BLR. 

There are simply too many variables to issue a hard and fast rules in most cases. Even three strike rules which might seem fair for some people, might be very unfair. In Texas for example, any three prior theft convictions can be tried as a felony. So a person at 17 years old might be caught stealing something for $2. Later that year he does the same thing. When he turns 18 he had again gets caught stealing something for a couple of dollars. 

Then for the next 40 years he realizes the stupidity of his teenage years and leads a productive life. He breaks no laws whatsoever. He does not even get a speeding ticket. Then in a moment of stupidity in his late 50s, he takes a pack of gum from the convenient store. Does this guy deserve 10 years in prison for that pack of gum? While some people might say, he should have known the law, does the punishment fit the crime? That is a problem with hard and fast rules. Even though the law allows Texas to file a felony case, would a DA do so in such a case and if so, would a jury sentence a person to the maximum for a pack of gum?

Compare that to a 30 year old being convicted of 15 misdemeanor thefts but the DA has allowed a plea deal for the misdemeanor. Finally tired of these $1,500 thefts (less than $2,500 in TX is a misdemeanor), the DA uses that same three strike rule. This guy steals the same pack of gum but has stolen over $30,000 worth of property in the last few years but has never been caught taking something over that $2,500 threshold for a felony.

Same punishment deserved?

I will give an example of a BLR. If you invoke your right to remain silent or your right to an attorney after being arrested, the Supreme Court has stated, not so long ago, that the right does not remain forever. In other words if you get arrested and say you want an attorney, the Police cannot legally ask you questions and in fact cannot even ask you if you change your mind. If five years later the police ask you, do you want to talk about that crime from five years ago and you confess, is that legal? After all, you told them you wanted an attorney. The Supreme Court has issued a BLR that if you have been out of jail for 14 days, your invoking of your rights goes away. It is not like you can say I wish to speak with an attorney when you’re 18 years old and then when you are 50 the police still can’t talk to you. In that case the Supreme Court came up with a BLR of 14 days. Even in the discussion of the rule (if I remember correctly) The Supreme Court said we have to give the police something to work with. So they came up with the arbitrary rule of 14 days saying that after 14 days from being released, the personnel basically returned to normal life. The basic shock of the arrest is over. That is an ironclad rule or a BLR. Let’s say you go to jail and you invoke your right to remain silent and then get out seven days later. The day you get out the police come to talk to you and you sign a full confession. That will be thrown out unless your attorney was present and they got permission from him to ask (which will not happen). There is no debate on whether you were aware of what you were doing, etc. The Supreme Court set a rule that you have to wait 14 days before you can speak with a person again and that is that.

So yes there are places for a hard and fast rules however much is left up to human discretion within certain parameters. The appeals court and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States, sets those guidelines that we go by. 

in my opinion..