Posted on 02/26/2015 6:52:24 AM PST by Rusty0604
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).
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The rural people were protected by the legions. Sure their tax burden was removed by the fall of the empire (which, all told, was a lesser burden than it is today) but they then had to face rapacious barbarians who took everything they owned and in many cases their lives as well.
EXCELLENT!
And I didn’t even go to Law School! LOL!
I don’t know where the court’s decision was legally correct or not, but the prosecution of the fisherman was ridiculous.
Oh stop. Might as well criticize her for breathing. She “cited” Dr. Suess to the undisputed point that a fish is a real object. It’s called a joke.
When we criticize people for every little thing it just dilutes meaningful criticism.
Strangely enough, most are.
"What was surprising was how often they agreed to agree. Two-thirds of the 72 cases fully decided this term were unanimous, the highest percentage in years. Most were low-profile disputes, but did include:"
http://wtvr.com/2014/07/01/supreme-court-had-highest-percentage-of-unanimous-decisions-this-session/
By “where” I meant “whether”.
It's possible Dr. Seuss is an authority figure to this "legal professional." About right for Team Obama.
First of all, SOX should not apply to a situation like this; it’s absurd.
Second, it should be a civil matter, not a criminal one.
This is a case where Thomas and Scalia got off track from their usual contextual interpretation of the law.
As an aside, “Alice in Wonderland” has been cited in more that a couple of USSC decisions. Such a citation would have been appropriate in this decision.
The same is true of many miltary acadamy graduates.
Ahhh. See, you miss the point of the law. The Red Herring here is that when said protected fish (or size of said fish) gets on the hook, you are a criminal. It's all incedental after that.
In fact, most of us are eager to bring the implosion on hard and quick so that we may get to the business of re-building. How ironic is that. We have given up trying to turn around the ship and believe it easier to sink this ship and build a new one. The reason for this is the humans that represent the American interests that have been elected..... You get the point.
I bet her politics and yours are not well aligned when it comes to "shrinking government".
LOL
Good grief.
You make a good point. I suppose this is finding a joke within a joke.
I didn’t know that. It’s just the “politically charged” ones that are split...
The whole thing is absurd if you ask me. A guy can’t catch some small fish and throw them back in the water without ending up in the Supreme Court of the United States, Where one of the Justices bases her opinion on Dr. Seuss?
You just don’t want us to have any fun!
Post of the thread.
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.