Posted on 02/25/2015 2:44:20 PM PST by ThethoughtsofGreg
Earlier today, the Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Yates v. United States. Previously written about on these pages, the case arose when Mr. Yates was accused of violating the anti-document shredding provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, legislation passed shortly after the 2001 Enron scandal, for throwing three undersized red grouper overboard after an encounter with Florida Fish and Wildlife.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court rejected the government’s broad interpretation of the anti-shredding statute (18 U.S.C § 1519) and held that a “tangible object” within §1519’s compass is one used to record or preserve information and does not apply to all objects in the physical world, including fish. Further, the Court found that if traditional tools of statutory construction left any doubt to the meaning of “tangible object,” it would be appropriate to invoke the rule of lenity, which requires that ambiguities in a criminal statute be resolved in favor of the defendant.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanlegislator.org ...
Ever notice that there are usually at least four idiots in these Supreme Court Decisions? Sometimes there are five and more.
So, the State was arguing that dead fish are ‘documents’?.............
I was looking for the sarc tag on the article.
“So, the State was arguing that dead fish are ‘documents’?.............”
Embarrassing, isn’t it? And frightening how they can interpret “is.”
HUH?
Why not?
Makes about as much sense as anything in the legal arena.
Good thing it was a flatfish. They might have had a point!...............
They were floundering around in court............
The scary part is that it even had to get to the USSC and the difffernce between a fish being a document and not was only one vote.
Ginsburg, Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Alito were in the majority (with Alito writing his own concurring opinion). Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, and Kagan were the dissenters.
OK. I get it now, LOL!
Majority opinion: Ginsberg, Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor; Alito concurring.
Kagan, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, dissenting.
FWIW, I agree with the decision. We are criminalizing way too much behavior in America today. Throwing a fish back in the ocean is a federal crime? Seriously?
I am surprised by Kennedy. He is usually of a more practical and somewhat libertarian bent.
"I'm not dead yet!"
-PJ
The Bass-o-Matic! Among the best of the early SNL work. Love it!
Thanks for the reminder, Diana in Wisconsin.
Interestingly, the 4 idiots in this case are Scalia, Thomas, Kagan, and Kennedy. By the word of the law, you’d probably agree with them. The law is incredibly stupid, the prosecution was pernicious, but the Supreme Court should stick to the law, and probably should have upheld the conviction.
No, the act didn’t just prohibit the shredding of documents. It prohibited destruction of “tangible objects,” which certainly does apply to a fish. It’s not the Court’s fault, it is (once again) Congress’s fault for sloppy draftsmanship.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.