What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Kepler said:
The Dubya presidency taught me that this doesn't work. No matter how terrible a mistake it is, the partisans never admit it, and in the meantime the rest of us who knew along it was a mistake suffer alongside them.

Never try to teach a pig to sing.
Click to expand...
Just what I've learned from the Obama presidency! :)
 
unofan said:
2nd one is by Alito for a unanimous court in a case involving the conversation clause in a child abuse case.

3rd one will also be from Alito. No word on it yet, though.
Click to expand...

3rd one is a criminal appellate procedure case. 5-4 on ideological lines, Alito writing for the conservatives plus Kennedy.

And that should be confrontation clause above...stupid auto correct.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

4th one is by Breyer, a first amendment case involving whether a state must issue sons of the confederate license plates.

5-4, liberals + Thomas. License plates constitute government speech and thus they do not have to issue confederate plates if the government does not want to send out that message.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Whoa, that Walker case was an interesting ruling both in the opinion and the breakdown... Thomas joins the liberals?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Interesting... From SCOTUS Blog:

Lovers of Justice Scalia and/or the confrontation clause should DEFINITELY check out Scalia's concurrence in the judgment in Ohio v. Clark. It is some sharply worded stuff -- accuses Alito of "shoveling dirt" on the grave of the key precedents, and using intentionally confusing "dicta" to try to undermine the clause's protections.
Click to expand...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

5th one is from Thomas. Case involves controlled substances that are banned under the "substantially similar" catch all. Unanimous court says a defendant must know the substance was what it turned out to be.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

There will be one more today. Could be from Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, or Roberts.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Not sure I agree with this ruling...

Holding: When a controlled substance is an analogue, the statute requires the government to establish that the defendant knew he was dealing with a substance regulated under the Controlled Substances Act or Analogue Act.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to read the opinion on why they went this way. I feel like this basically makes synthetics legal...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

It's the free speech case regarding sign ordinances. Unanimous court reversing the lower court. By Thomas.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

unofan said:
5th one is from Thomas. Case involves controlled substances that are banned under the "substantially similar" catch all. Unanimous court says a defendant must know the substance was what it turned out to be.
Click to expand...

That makes it sound like ignorance is now an acceptable defense for breaking the law.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
Not sure I agree with this ruling...



I'm going to have to read the opinion on why they went this way. I feel like this basically makes synthetics legal...
Click to expand...

I read it as you can't convict someone who thinks they're selling oregano if it's actually synthetic pot. They have to know it's synthetic pot
 
St. Clown said:
That makes it sound like ignorance is now an acceptable defense for breaking the law.
Click to expand...

Mistake of fact is almost always a potential defense outside of strict liability crimes. Mistake of law is rarely a defense to anything (unless it's the rule against perpituities and you're a lawyer facing an ineffective assistance claim - there are multiple courts saying it's not ineffective because no one knows what that piece of crap rule means)
 
Last edited:
unofan said:
I read it as you can't convict someone who thinks they're selling oregano if it's actually synthetic pot. They have to know it's synthetic pot
Click to expand...

Thomas says the knowledge requirement is met if the defendant knows it's covered, even if he didn't know what it is. It is also met if the defendant knows the features of the substance that would make it a controlled substance.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

unofan said:
Thomas says the knowledge requirement is met if the defendant knows it's covered, even if he didn't know what it is. It is also met if the defendant knows the features of the substance that would make it a controlled substance.
Click to expand...

So if he's selling oregano, calling it pot, and it turns out to be pot, would that satisfy the law?

Otherwise, if he's selling a substance that's being "marketed" as a substance to get you high (bath salts maybe?), and it turns out to be a banned synthetic, then he could be convicted...?
 
unofan said:
3 more released today, none of them big ones.

More coming Thursday. 17 total to go, of which I'd probably call 4-5 of them big - gay marriage, ACA, fair housing act, death penalty drugs, and Arizona independent redistricting.
Click to expand...

11 to go after today, and these five are all still out there. Only tea leaf available is that it's likely Kennedy is writing the Fair Housing case, which shouldn't make either side comfortable.

They might get everything done in 3 more release days, though a fourth wouldn't surprise me. They'll be done no later than two weeks from now, either way. They won't ruin their holiday weekend.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
So if he's selling oregano, calling it pot, and it turns out to be pot, would that satisfy the law?

Otherwise, if he's selling a substance that's being "marketed" as a substance to get you high (bath salts maybe?), and it turns out to be a banned synthetic, then he could be convicted...?
Click to expand...

This case involves "bath salts" - he could still get convicted, the court basically said they used a bad jury instruction.

I don't know about your former scenario. I suppose it depends if he believes it was oregano or not. I would think he might face fraud charges in the alternative, though, so either way he'd be seeing time behind bars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top