Supreme Court rules in Yates v. United States

American Legislator ^ | 2-25-15 | Cara Sullivan

[DiogenesLamp]

Ever notice that there are usually at least four idiots in these Supreme Court Decisions? Sometimes there are five and more.

[Red Badger]

So, the State was arguing that dead fish are ‘documents’?.............

[houeto]

I was looking for the sarc tag on the article.

[EDINVA]

“So, the State was arguing that dead fish are ‘documents’?.............”

Embarrassing, isn’t it? And frightening how they can interpret “is.”

[Diana in Wisconsin]

HUH?

[Red Badger]

[OneWingedShark]

Why not?
Makes about as much sense as anything in the legal arena.

[Red Badger]

Good thing it was a flatfish. They might have had a point!...............

[Red Badger]

They were floundering around in court............

[OneWingedShark]

You'd never guess it from their fishing-expedition.

[Crim]

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.

[ConservativeTeen]

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.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

OK. I get it now, LOL!

[colorado tanker]

I can't remember another SCOTUS decision with a stranger grouping of Justices.

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.

[Political Junkie Too]

the State was arguing that dead fish are ‘documents’?

"I'm not dead yet!"

-PJ

[PubliusMM]

The Bass-o-Matic! Among the best of the early SNL work. Love it!

Thanks for the reminder, Diana in Wisconsin.

[Wayne07]

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.

[Benito Cereno]

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.

[Michael.SF.]