Supreme Court rules in Yates v. United States

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

[Wayne07]

It is a stupid law, and we are criminalizing way too much, but do you really want the supreme court to act based on that criteria? It is a dangerous invitation to judicial activism. Laws like this need to be killed legislatively, not judicially.

[joe fonebone]

this is easy...

grab the fish by the tail..

slap it hard along the side of the boat..

it will grow at least 3 inches...

if it is more than 3 inches short, do yourself a favor..

throw it back

[Diana in Wisconsin]

:)

[Raycpa]

Foreshadowing health care decision on whether federal government is a state?

[vbmoneyspender]

Reading the opinion, Kagan's dissent was joined by Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy. That's a pretty unusual combination. The reason they dissented is that Section 1519 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act uses the term 'tangible object' rather than the word 'documents.' Applying the plain meaning of the term 'tangible object', the dissenters argued that Section 1519 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act should apply to a fish or any other physical object rather than being restricted to just documents. Kagan, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy thus believed that the statute applied to the actions at hand. But here is the kicker at the end of the dissent:

Still and all, I tend to think, for the reasons the plurality gives, that §1519 is a bad law—too broad and undifferentiated, with too-high maximum penalties, which give prosecutors too much leverage and sentencers too much discretion. And I’d go further: In those ways, §1519 is unfortunately not an outlier, but an emblem of a deeper pathology in the federal criminal code.

So what the dissenters are doing is here applying Abraham Lincoln's maxim on bad laws - "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

I didn't read it, but naturally assumed it was the usual breakdown of the court. It is odd that Thomas and Scalia sided with Kagan, and Kennedy is an unpredictable weather-vane.

I would at least give Thomas and Scalia's opinions some consideration.

[latina4dubya]

"I'm not dead yet!"

today is Abe Vagoda's birthday! he is 94... seems like he has always been 94 :)

[DiogenesLamp]

So what the dissenters are doing is here applying Abraham Lincoln's maxim on bad laws - "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."

That's a tough one. Is there really any hope that the enforcement of this bad law will result in some sort of beneficial change? If not, in the meantime, someone is being horribly damaged by strict application of this law.

Odd to see Thomas and Scalia on the same side as Kagan, and of course, who can predict Kennedy?

[EDINVA]

When’s the last time anyone saw a 5-4 split like THIS? Maybe bodes well for a future where partisanship isn’t a SCOTUS question?

[vbmoneyspender]

It's not easy being a judge with a conscience. Do you do your job and apply the law when it is plainly written even if the law is unjust or do you pretend the law doesn't say what is says so that you can do justice?

[Raycpa]

This tells me how the vote will go on health care and its plain language.

[Secret Agent Man]

Our top court thinks people don’t exist until out of the birth canal, yet want to throw two double murder charges at a person for killing a pregnant woman.

The bipolar schitzophrenia knows no bounds.

[Verginius Rufus]

What’s an “anti-document”?

[ConservativeMind]

How, in the heck, does SOX apply to a private citizen who fishes?

SOX applies to public companies and nothing more, in my understanding.

[colorado tanker]

Laws like this need to be killed legislatively, not judicially.

I disagree in this case. The Court was not being activist, but was textually analyzing the statute. This statute was enacted as part of Sarbanes-Oxley and was intended to stop persons under investigation from shredding documents. It was never intended to be a general incrimination under federal law of all spoliation of evidence, certainly not throwing fish overboard.

[Wayne07]

The text pretty clearly says documents OR tangible evidence. I trust Scalia and Thomas more than any others on the court. I'm happy the guy got off, because this is horrible abuse by the government.

“Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

[Lurking Libertarian]

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

The statute says it is a crime to destroy any "record, document or tangible object" with intent to obstruct an investigation. The four dissenters (who included Scalia and Thomas) said that a fish is a tangible object and that statutes should be read literally. The majority relied on the intent of Congress, which was to reach destruction of documents, computer hard drives and the like.

[1010RD]

Wow, talk about overreach. We’ve got to shrink down the number of laws.

[RedMDer]

Only Four days to go until March!

FReepers, Let's GIT_R_DONE!


[1010RD]

Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, and Kagan?

Strange bedfellows. Did Thomas or Scalia believe that the fish fell under SOX?