Posted on 02/25/2015 9:53:08 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
Dead link.
Such small minds seek out minutia to find the devil in the details to get convictions based on forgetting to dot an "i" or cross a "t". . . while missing the fact that someone is stealing the safe from right behind them while they are examining the books for minor errors with a microscope!
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Where I come from “undersized fish” are called bait.
Outrageous that throwing fish back in the water is punished worse than murder.
Supreme Court Justice Kagan uses Dr. Seuss in case argumentBy Phillip Swarts - The Washington Times - Wednesday, February 25, 2015
When the Supreme Court announced its decision Wednesday on whether a fisherman should be charged under Wall Street regulatory laws, Justice Elena Kagan decided to include an unusual judicial argument: Dr. Seuss.
In 2007 in Florida, law enforcement officials confronted fisherman John Yates, saying he had caught several red groupers that were too small. Mr. Yates then tossed the fish overboard. But he was charged under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which sought to punish the destruction of physical evidence in wake of the Enron scandal where accountants shredded thousands of documents.
In a 5-4 decision announced Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was meant to apply only to records or information documents.
But in her dissent, Justice Kagan argued that fish should be included in the tangible object category of evidence the law describes.
A fish is, of course, a discrete thing that possesses physical form, she wrote. See generally Dr. Seuss, One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish (1960).
During oral arguments in November, things sometimes took a turn for the absurd, as justices debated the legal nature of fish and whether a fish could count as a record if information was carved into its scales.
We are in a race to find the most insane decisions from this once august body. . . four of them are certifiable.
My girlfriend and I created this proposed addendum for the IDC-10, the listing of disease codes, because they obviously forgot to include it when they did the update from the IDC-9 back in October from 17,000 diagnostic codes to over 155,000:
321.0 SPLAT Liberal Cerebral Defenestration (LCD) or Liberal Acquired Brain Absence (LABA), Complete loss of rationality, cognition, and cerebration due to indiscriminately keeping one's mind so far open that the brain falls out. First and subsequent encounters.
I know you can shred pork...not sure about fish.
A glass-ectomy is when you cut your bellybutton out and put a piece of glass in there so when you have your head up your arse, you can see where youre going.
Come on. If there’s one thing Kagan knows about it’s shredding fish ;)
“They find the word they want to apply without understanding the context in which the word lies.”..
To quote a once famous “attorney” when asked a question with the word “is” in the question, he answered, “It depends on what your interpretation of “IS’ is”....
“They find the word they want to apply without understanding the context in which the word lies.”..
To quote a once famous “attorney” when asked a question with the word “is” in the question, he answered, “It depends on what your interpretation of “IS’ is”....
You can also tune a piano, but can you tune a fish?
Poorly written and ill-conceived laws become tools of vindictiveness and oppression.
Did anybody read Scalias’ and Thomas’ dissenting opinions?
I didn’t. Summery?
Kagan, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. I haven’t read the full dissent.
REO Speedwagon agrees.
Kagan was arguing not that a fish is a document, but that it is a "tangible object." Her dissent was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. The majority opinion is by Ginsburg.
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.