Posted on 10/14/2014 7:40:57 PM PDT by EveningStar
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia share a famous fondness for the opera, but they don't often find themselves on the same side of divided Supreme Court decisions. So it was noteworthy on Tuesday when, along with conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, Ginsburg and Scalia teamed up to file a strongly-worded dissent in the court's decision to reject an appeal in a crack-cocaine sentencing case.
The move to submit a signed dissent, noted first by Reason.com, was rare enough. The Supreme Court denies a vast majority of the petitions it receives, usually without any explanation or dissenting opinions. That's true even in major cases, such as last week's decision not to hear appeals from states whose bans on same-sex marriage were overturned by lower courts.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
If Scalia,Thomas and Ginsberg dissented because they wanted to end the pervasive injustice of false criminal charges, overcharges and undercharges...then I completely agree with them.
If they dissented because a judge decided the “deal” was unjust, then I don't.
Frankly, I am sick of the current legal system that barters among themselves and completely and arbitrarily ignores clearly written laws and their clear intent for political convenience. If some low life SOB viciously beats and robs me, I am not going to understand why he was eventually only officially charged with simple assault.
Read the article. There was a trial, not a plea bargain. Defendants were acquitted by the jury of the major distribution charges, convicted only of minor possession, but the judge sentenced them as if they were dealers, not users.
SCOTUS ping.
Interesting.
Although the jury decided they were not guilty of conspiracy “beyond a reasonable doubt”, the judge could still decide that the “preponderance of the evidence” showed that they were and impose a high sentence- within guidelines (there are two different standards for evidence involved0..
I don’t understand if he exceeded the guidelines. Scalia only says the appellants claim he did.
Right...because our entire criminal justice system is above reproach and all the government employees involved are focused like a laser on justice, and not on what is most politically expedient at the time.
Whatever planet you are living on must have heavily censored communications.
Or you just don’t pay attention, at all, to the real world.
The entire court system “plea bargains” on each and every piece of evidence the jury is “allowed” to consider.
What are you smoking? Where did you get that from my comment? I consider this decision a grave injustice, and I wish the three dissenters had garnered a fourth vote to overturn it.
Whatever planet you are living on must have heavily censored communications. Or you just don’t pay attention, at all, to the real world.
As a lawyer, I have represented dozens, if not hundreds, of defendants in criminal cases. So I suspect I have more knowledge of the "real world" than you do. Feel free to correct me if your experience is greater than mine.
The entire court system “plea bargains” on each and every piece of evidence the jury is “allowed” to consider.
There are lots of things that affect what a jury hears, but a "plea bargain" is not one of them. By definition, if there is a jury trial, there wasn't a "plea bargain." With all deference, you seriously misunderstood my post.
'Nuff said.
In criminal cases, the "liberal" and "conservative" labels the Justices have acquired don't always hold true. Scalia often (but by no means always) champions criminal defendants' constitutional rights, but Alito is almost 100% pro-prosecution; Ginsburg is usually pro-defense, but Breyer is often pro-prosecution.
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.