lucid
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove View PostNeed to read that decision closely but the difference between Roberts and ACB is interesting. Seems like another case where one side wants to read something literally (ACB), and the other is using context (Roberts) to say the law can't possibly mean that. Roberts concedes on page 16 that the law can be read literally to allow these prosecutions, but he doesn't believe Congress intended it to be read that way.
23-5572 Fischer v. United States (06/28/2024) (supremecourt.gov)
Convictions will be overturned. I don't think this will make it literally impossible to retry them, but the burden of proof (on the govt) is much higher now if I understand it correctly.
Ironically, the Fischer guy who brought this suit might not benefit a ton. He was convicted of six other charges, including assaulting an officer.
Now, in contrast, they were fine with doing that in the Title VII case to say "because of sex" includes sexual orientation.
But anyone who reads this statute knows that it's about destruction of evidence. It's not broad enough to -- as Gorsuch pointed out at oral argument -- capture Bowman's pulling of the fire alarm -- even thought, literally, it is.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
- Top
Comment
-
-
- Top
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment