Skip to comments.
Supreme Court rules in Yates v. United States
American Legislator ^
| 2-25-15
| Cara Sullivan
Posted on 02/25/2015 2:44:20 PM PST by ThethoughtsofGreg
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 next last
To: ThethoughtsofGreg
Ever notice that there are usually at least four idiots in these Supreme Court Decisions? Sometimes there are five and more.
To: ThethoughtsofGreg
So, the State was arguing that dead fish are ‘documents’?.............
3
posted on
02/25/2015 2:48:42 PM PST
by
Red Badger
(If you compromise with evil, you just get more evil..........................)
To: DiogenesLamp
I was looking for the sarc tag on the article.
4
posted on
02/25/2015 2:50:58 PM PST
by
houeto
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate)
To: Red Badger
“So, the State was arguing that dead fish are documents?.............”
Embarrassing, isn’t it? And frightening how they can interpret “is.”
5
posted on
02/25/2015 2:51:07 PM PST
by
EDINVA
To: ThethoughtsofGreg
6
posted on
02/25/2015 2:51:28 PM PST
by
Diana in Wisconsin
(I don't have 'Hobbies.' I'm developing a robust Post-Apocalyptic skill set...)
To: EDINVA
7
posted on
02/25/2015 2:52:27 PM PST
by
Red Badger
(If you compromise with evil, you just get more evil..........................)
To: Red Badger
Why not?
Makes about as much sense as anything in the legal arena.
8
posted on
02/25/2015 2:52:48 PM PST
by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
To: Diana in Wisconsin
Good thing it was a flatfish. They might have had a point!...............
9
posted on
02/25/2015 2:53:10 PM PST
by
Red Badger
(If you compromise with evil, you just get more evil..........................)
To: OneWingedShark
They were floundering around in court............
10
posted on
02/25/2015 2:54:07 PM PST
by
Red Badger
(If you compromise with evil, you just get more evil..........................)
To: Red Badger
You'd never guess it from their fishing-expedition.
11
posted on
02/25/2015 2:55:34 PM PST
by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
To: ThethoughtsofGreg
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.
12
posted on
02/25/2015 2:56:58 PM PST
by
Crim
(Palin / West '16)
To: ThethoughtsofGreg
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.
To: Red Badger
OK. I get it now, LOL!
14
posted on
02/25/2015 2:58:39 PM PST
by
Diana in Wisconsin
(I don't have 'Hobbies.' I'm developing a robust Post-Apocalyptic skill set...)
To: ThethoughtsofGreg
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.
To: Red Badger
the State was arguing that dead fish are documents? "I'm not dead yet!"
-PJ
16
posted on
02/25/2015 3:00:30 PM PST
by
Political Junkie Too
(If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
To: Diana in Wisconsin
The Bass-o-Matic! Among the best of the early SNL work. Love it!
Thanks for the reminder, Diana in Wisconsin.
17
posted on
02/25/2015 3:01:47 PM PST
by
PubliusMM
(RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2016; I pray we make it that long.)
To: 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.
18
posted on
02/25/2015 3:01:52 PM PST
by
Wayne07
To: Red Badger
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.
To: ThethoughtsofGreg
20
posted on
02/25/2015 3:03:14 PM PST
by
Michael.SF.
(It takes a gun to feed a village (and an AK 47 to defend it).)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson