[DiogenesLamp]

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

[houeto]

I was looking for the sarc tag on the article.

[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.

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So what the dissenters are doing is here applying Abraham Lincoln's maxim on bad laws - "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."

[Cheerio]

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

Ya, AND they are there for life or until they reach the age of 120 whichever comes first. And the population has no legal WAY TO GET RID OF THEM.

Does anyone else find it incredulous that no one in the District of Corruption represents "WE THE PEOPLE"? The King does whatever he wants and the Congress no longer listens to us, and the SCOTUS - well you know how I feel about Article III.