Now that Kavanaugh's confirmed...

[TLK Valentine]

On thing to keep in mind is that while Kavanaugh is a conservative, he is also a Roman Catholic. To the extent (if any) that he may be biased by his religious views he would be in agreement with "the base" on issues like abortion and, perhaps, gay marriage. On the other hand, on other issues important to the Christian Right, he may disappoint them. The death penalty, which the RC church opposes, may be an example.

I suspect Donald's people took that under consideration when they suggested Kavanaugh. If they did their homework, they believe his faith makes him appealing, but not inconvenient.

 

[Aldebaran]

The supreme court now works for Donald Trump and the republican majority, and it's newest member is ready and able to protect the president from any investigations.

The US government, already elected by minority vote via the electoral college, the gerrymandered congress, and senators from the minority population states are now taking control of the courts by nearly party line vote.

In terms of being a "representative" democracy the government is practically illegitimate.

Did the government work for the people when the democrats had a majority? It wasn't all that long ago when that was the case.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Did the government work for the people when the democrats had a majority? It wasn't all that long ago when that was the case.

Do you think it will when the Democrats get that majority back? The GOP doesn't -- that, and not a few rambunctious protesters in the streets, is why they're so afraid.

 

[variant]

Did the government work for the people when the democrats had a majority? It wasn't all that long ago when that was the case.

I think the current, fairly radical government is a very poor representation of the country at large and I don't think there is any good check on them anymore.

I think the only good example on the other side recently would be when the democrats forced through the ACA (that people didn't want) as an overreach when they weren't properly checked.

 

[NotreDame]

...pay attention to his upcoming vote in Gamble v. United States, which the President could then use to pardon his cronies... even the ones facing trial in state courts -- which so far, has been out or the President's reach.

To wit: Gamble v. United States questions the "separate sovereignty" exception to double jeopardy -- that a man can be tried for the same crime twice, on the state and the federal level.

Gamble v. United States - Wikipedia

Think about it: If Gamble is decided favorably to Donald, he could, in theory, have his DoJ exert federal jurisdiction over a concurrent state crime, issue a quick pardon to the offender on the federal crime, which would render them immune to prosecution on the state level. They get off scot-free.

Keeping in mind that some of Donald's cronies are currently awaiting trial in state courts, all he'd need is a swing vote on SCOTUS to interfere with state legal processes to get his people off... and you just gave him that swing vote.

Remember when conservatives were all about States' rights?

Doubtful.

The case concerns the 5th Amendment prohibition of twice being tried for the same offense, commonly known as the Double Jeopardy Clause. The case you reference pertains to the 5th Amendment prohibition of twice being tried for the same offense and the "separate sovereign" doctrine.

The "separate sovereign" rationale allows for a defendant to twice be tried/plead guilty to the same criminal offense, or twice tried/plead guilty to a criminal offense arising from the same criminal episode, once in federal court and again in state court. The Court rescinding the "separate sovereign" rationale would prohibit a person pleading to/trial of the same defendant for the same offense or a criminal offense arising from the same criminal episode.

The President's pardon power is understood to apply to only the federal government. The President pardoning TLK Valentine would only be applicable to federal crimes. The state governments would still be permitted to prosecute TLK Valentine because the pardon power is not the same as the 5th Amendment prohibition against twice being tried for the same offense. A pardon bars only federal prosecution and a pardon does not constitute as a trial or a plea, hence, a pardon is not a situation in which the person faces two prosecutions of the same offense, the latter is what the 5th Amendment addresses.

So, no, this decision would not result in the outcome of the President's pardon power being made applicable to state prosecutions.

 

[NotreDame]

I'd be willing to entertain a compromise -- eliminate "separate sovereignty" in attach double jeopardy for cases that end in convictions or acquittals... but not for mistrials or pardons.

Mistrials are easy enough -- courts can already retry such cases -- preserving separate sovereignty for pardons would eliminate Donald's loophole.

In fact, since Burdick v. United States says that accepting a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt, they can say that accepting a pardon for the federal crime constitutes a guilty plea for the state crime, and vice versa. Justice is served.

Thoughts?

Admitting guilt is not the same as twice being prosecuted for the same offense and the 5th Amendment seeks to preclude double prosecutions. Since the pardon power, being applicable only to federal offenses, is an admission of guilt to the commission of federal offense, thereby precluding ANY federal prosecution, i.e. no federal prosecution occurs, then the states are still free to prosecute the person who was pardoned. Why? Because there was not and there is not a double prosecution in federal or state court, the former being barred by a pardon.

 

[NotreDame]

He's a judge, first and foremost. Dedicated to the impartial application of the law.

Or is he?

Sure, but this does not mean he cannot already have a preconceived notion of how to interpret and apply the law. He may impartially apply how he believes the law is to be interpreted.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The President's pardon power is understood to apply to only the federal government. The President pardoning TLK Valentine would only be applicable to federal crimes. The state governments would still be permitted to prosecute TLK Valentine because the pardon power is not the same as the 5th Amendment prohibition against twice being tried for the same offense. A pardon bars only federal prosecution and a pardon does not constitute as a trial or a plea, hence, a pardon is not a situation in which the person faces two prosecutions of the same offense, the latter is what the 5th Amendment addresses.

So, no, this decision would not result in the outcome of the President's pardon power being made applicable to state prosecutions.

That's reassuring, but I still have a couple of questions:

1. My (admittedly rudimentary) knowledge of the law here is that jeopardy attaches to a case as soon as the jury is sworn in (or the first witness, in trials without juries), or is a court accepts a plea deal to avoid the trial altogether. Burdick v. United States made it clear that a pardoned defendant can only accept a pardon willingly, and has the right to refuse because accepting a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt (although it's a bit fuzzy whether that last part is part of the decision or the dicta).

So what happens if the pardon is issued in the middle of a trial, after jeopardy is attached?

 

[FenderTL5]

..Since the pardon power, being applicable only to federal offenses, is an admission of guilt to the commission of federal offense, thereby precluding ANY federal prosecution, i.e. no federal prosecution occurs, then the states are still free to prosecute the person who was pardoned. Why? Because there was not and there is not a double prosecution in federal or state court, the former being barred by a pardon.

Why would anyone accept/agree to a federal pardon if it basically means they have admitted guilt, already, in an upcoming state case?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Admitting guilt is not the same as twice being prosecuted for the same offense and the 5th Amendment seeks to preclude double prosecutions. Since the pardon power, being applicable only to federal offenses, is an admission of guilt to the commission of federal offense, thereby precluding ANY federal prosecution, i.e. no federal prosecution occurs, then the states are still free to prosecute the person who was pardoned. Why? Because there was not and there is not a double prosecution in federal or state court, the former being barred by a pardon.

Ah, I'm starting to see it now.

Nevertheless, if Gamble v United States is decided the way I suspect it will be (and I'm not necessarily saying it shouldn't), I have a sick suspicion that Donald's legal team will attempt to make the argument... your knowledge of the law notwithstanding, I'm concerned that SCOTUS might not see it the same way...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sure, but this does not mean he cannot already have a preconceived notion of how to interpret and apply the law. He may impartially apply how he believes the law is to be interpreted.

Of course -- but is it possible that his preconceived notion may have been changed due to his recent experiences with Democratic Senators? Shouldn't that be something we should keep an eye on in his future decisions?

 

[NotreDame]

Why would anyone accept/agree to a federal pardon if it basically means they have admitted guilt, already, in an upcoming state case?

Because a pardon isn’t an admission of guilt in a state case.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why would anyone accept/agree to a federal pardon if it basically means they have admitted guilt, already, in an upcoming state case?

My understanding is that when state and federal statutes have been simultaneously broken, the state usually tries its case first. More pragmatic than traditional -- with a smaller bureaucracy, the state can usually proceed faster.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Because a pardon isn’t an admission of guilt in a state case.

Does that mean Burdick v US only applies to presidential pardons?

 

[Aldebaran]

Do you think it will when the Democrats get that majority back? The GOP doesn't -- that, and not a few rambunctious protesters in the streets, is why they're so afraid.

Afraid? Sounds like Hillary is the one who's afraid to the point that civility is no longer an option. Hillary Clinton: You 'cannot be civil' with Republicans, Democrats need to be 'tougher'

Let's hope the democrats in general don't subscribe to this. Their protesters already have.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Afraid? Sounds like Hillary is the one who's afraid to the point that civility is no longer an option. Hillary Clinton: You 'cannot be civil' with Republicans, Democrats need to be 'tougher'

Let's hope the democrats in general don't subscribe to this. Their protesters already have.

Are you afraid that they might?

 

[Aldebaran]

Are you afraid that they might?

Of course! It's already happening. Check it out. Do you want this to happen around the whole country? Antifa Shut Down Major Intersection, Threaten Citizens with Violence If They Don't Obey

 

[TLK Valentine]

Of course! It's already happening. Check it out. Do you want this to happen around the whole country? Antifa Shut Down Major Intersection, Threaten Citizens with Violence If They Don't Obey

Antifa = Democrat party?

 

[Aldebaran]

Antifa = Democrat party?

Have you ever seen Antifa protest or get violent against Democrats? Even people writing for the Chicago Tribune can see the problem they're creating: The Democratic silence on antifa is dangerous

As do others:
From antifa anarchists to angry liberals, bullying becomes the norm

 

[Rion]

I am more interested in whenever a Title IX kangaroo court case reaches the Supreme Court. I think that I can say what his opinion will be.