Now that Kavanaugh's confirmed...

[TLK Valentine]

...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?

 

[Silmarien]

I'd be surprised if SCOTUS turned into a circus show that quickly, but the sky's the limit now that we've got our dear friend Executive Privilege on the bench, I suppose.

 

[thecolorsblend]

...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 trail 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?

That covers a lot of ground and connects a few different legal theories. I'm no attorney (I don't even play one on TV) but I don't think the level of overreach the left fears on this is realistic.

Separately, I can see why this elimination of double-jeopardy that you describe would be troubling for liberals regarding Trump and the possibility of issuing a pardon to people suspected of wrongdoing.

But I can also see where permitting this kind of double-jeopardy could allow authentic abuse of people's rights to happen. Maybe getting rid of that would ultimately be the best thing.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That covers a lot of ground and connects a few different legal theories. I'm no attorney (I don't even play one on TV) but I don't think the level of overreach the left fears on this is realistic.

Separately, I can see why this elimination of double-jeopardy that you describe would be troubling for liberals regarding Trump and the possibility of issuing a pardon to people suspected of wrongdoing.

But I can also see where permitting this kind of double-jeopardy could allow authentic abuse of people's rights to happen. Maybe getting rid of that would ultimately be the best thing.

Indeed -- there are legitimate reasons for separate sovereignty to be examined and possibly limited... but a president who values and rewards personal loyalty above all else, who already has no compunctions being fast and loose with the pardon pen, and who has minions currently awaiting trial in state courts, might not be quite as interested in the legitimate reasons as you or I.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Indeed -- there are legitimate reasons for separate sovereignty to be examined and possibly limited... but a president who values and rewards personal loyalty above all else, who already has no compunctions being fast and loose with the pardon pen, and who has minions currently awaiting trial in state courts, might not be quite as interested in the legitimate reasons as you or I.

Maybe so.

But ask yourself if it's really a wise policy to deny double-jeopardy protections to all American citizens on the off-chance that Trump decides to pardon a handful of people who may be legitimately guilty of wrongdoing.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Maybe so.

But ask yourself if it's really a wise policy to deny double-jeopardy protections to all American citizens on the off-chance that Trump decides to pardon a handful of people who may be legitimately guilty of wrongdoing.

The exception is there for a reason -- The Fifth Amendment states that "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."

The key word there is offence, not action. If your action breaks the laws of two sovereign governments, you've committed two offenses... how do they determine who prosecutes you? Flip a coin?

I found this interesting: http://www.icje.org/articles/DoubleJeopardy.pdf

 

[thecolorsblend]

The exception is there for a reason -- The Fifth Amendment states that "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."

The key word there is offence, not action. If your action breaks the laws of two sovereign governments, you've committed two offenses... how do they determine who prosecutes you? Flip a coin?

I found this interesting: http://www.icje.org/articles/DoubleJeopardy.pdf

Look bro, I don't pretend to have the right answer here. There are reasons for and against. All I want is for everybody to try giving this some fair consideration apart from the immediate political challenges of today. SCOTUS will do what they will; they always do.

I'll give your link a look.

 

[Arcangl86]

I'm fairly liberal, and I have no idea why all the lefties I know are screaming about Gamble and I don't get it. The Supreme Court is about the long run, not contemporary politics. I mean when groups such as the ACLU and the Cato Institute both think the doctrine should go, well maybe the doctrine should go.

 

[jgarden]

I'm fairly liberal, and I have no idea why all the lefties I know are screaming about Gamble and I don't get it. The Supreme Court is about the long run, not contemporary politics. I mean when groups such as the ACLU and the Cato Institute both think the doctrine should go, well maybe the doctrine should go.

These are not normal times and the "narcissistic" billionaire currently residing in the White House is not restrained by the same constraints that other Presidents placed upon themselves.

 

[Arcangl86]

These are not normal times and the "narcissistic" billionaire currently residing in the White House is not restrained by the same constraints that other Presidents placed upon themselves.

He's also out in 2-6 years. Supreme Court precedent lasts for decades. Quite frankly I don't care if a few of Trumps cronies are given pardons if it means that regular people don't have to worry about being harassed by continual prosecution. I also think there is a strong legal argument against it.

 

[LoAmmi]

These are not normal times and the "narcissistic" billionaire currently residing in the White House is not restrained by the same constraints that other Presidents placed upon themselves.

Ok, but blocking this would impact the lives or regular Americans decades into the future. I'm not going to forget about them because I don't like the current resident of the White House.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm fairly liberal, and I have no idea why all the lefties I know are screaming about Gamble and I don't get it. The Supreme Court is about the long run, not contemporary politics. I mean when groups such as the ACLU and the Cato Institute both think the doctrine should go, well maybe the doctrine should go.

It was -- and I sincerely hope it remains so.

To insure that, the Senate needs to undo its nuclear option and remove the simple majority for SCOTUS nominees... I sincerely hop that if the Senate flips next month, the new leadership will consider doing that, rather than look to exploit the power that the other side grabbed for itself.

 

[TLK Valentine]

He's also out in 2-6 years. Supreme Court precedent lasts for decades.

Which makes this all the more disturbing -- If Donald's only thinking of immediate gratification, then he's neglecting the long-term consequences of his actions.

Quite frankly I don't care if a few of Trumps cronies are given pardons if it means that regular people don't have to worry about being harassed by continual prosecution.

And if it doesn't mean that?

I also think there is a strong legal argument against it.

There are strong arguments for and against it -- and the case should be argued on the merit of those arguments... not on the wishes of a corrupt president to save his own skin.

Remember... according to Donald, he can also pardon himself.

 

[mark kennedy]

...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?

Oh you can forget about states rights. It will be about voting down party lines from here out.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Look bro, I don't pretend to have the right answer here. There are reasons for and against. All I want is for everybody to try giving this some fair consideration apart from the immediate political challenges of today. SCOTUS will do what they will; they always do.

I'll give your link a look.

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?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Oh you can forget about states rights. It will be about voting down party lines from here out.

Which is exactly why the next Senate needs to undo the Nuclear Option and eliminate the simple majority for SCOTUS nominations -- we need at least the illusion of bipartisanship.

 

[mark kennedy]

Which is exactly why the next Senate needs to undo the Nuclear Option and eliminate the simple majority for SCOTUS nominations -- we need at least the illusion of bipartisanship.

The next Senate will in all likelyhood be controlled by the GOP. Fat chance. I'd like to see it just be more deliberative. You really have to think in terms of what errodes the democratic process. We will know more in November, God help us, I think this nomination has divided the court right down party lines.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The next Senate will in all likelyhood be controlled by the GOP. Fat chance.

Probably.

We will know more in November, God help us, I think this nomination has divided the court right down party lines.

...which was the whole point.

 

[mark kennedy]

Probably.



...which was the whole point.

Sadly, we are in agreement. I just wish I had some means to argue otherwise. I'm not impressed with the track record of the Supreme Court but never considered them a political tool until now. I have strong convictions regarding abortion and have long respected the right to life movement, especially the consistancy of the Catholic Church on the issue. It gives me grave reservations to think this might be how they win a few victories. I fear the intigrity of the court is vulnerable, the spurious allegation against Kavanaugh seems trivial to me in comparison.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sadly, we are in agreement. I just wish I had some means to argue otherwise. I'm not impressed with the track record of the Supreme Court but never considered them a political tool until now.

We are in agreement.

I have strong convictions regarding abortion and have long respected the right to life movement, especially the consistancy of the Catholic Church on the issue.

Even though I disagree with the pro-life position, I can understand their reasoning.

It gives me grave reservations to think this might be how they win a few victories.

Well, this is what they paid their thirty pieces of silver for back in the '70s... Matthew 16:26, eh?

I fear the intigrity of the court is vulnerable, the spurious allegation against Kavanaugh seems trivial to me in comparison.

Well, I don't consider Dr. Ford's allegation "spurious," but it's unsubstantiated and unprovable.

The fact that it took Flake's threat to torpedo the nomination just to get it investigated demonstrates how seriously it wasn't taken.

Nothing must stand in the way of the powerful becoming more powerful.