I would side with the minority on this one, based on a first reading.
Would have been nice if the dumb author of this article gave us pertinent info like which justices voted yes and which voted nay.
So would most of us.
Gorsuch is a serious civil libertarian
Remember the guys in the Rodney King case were tried twice, with the 2nd trial being for violating civil rights? The legal reasoning, as I understand it, was that the trials were for different legal violations.
Ditto OJ Simpson, sued for wrongful death in civil court after his acquittal in the criminal trial.
You have the same thing with Federal hate crime prosecutions ... they just rename the crime as hate.
“studied, detail, minority, on this one, first reading”
I think this is a clue to dispose of the mess. Conjured remedies are fine by them.
I would say that if there was a state prosecution and then a federal prosecution, it should be illegal because of the Constitution. If the opposite, it would depend on the state constitution.
Generally, a crime or offense can fall under different jurisdictions, for different causes of action. Thus, a person can be brought up on state charges, and also be brought up on federal charges, both charges arising out of the same event.
Well hell. We might as well go WHOLE EFFIN’ HOG.
- World Court prosecution.
- Federal US Court prosecution.
- State Court prosecution.
- County Court prosecution.
- City Court prosecution.
- Precinct Court prosecution.
I mean hell, we GOTTA be able to nail someone with six seperate prosecutions!!!!
Besides, we’ll sure be able to bankrupt the bast’d.
America is a mockery of itself, at this point.
Although the two convictions involved the "same defendant," the "same crime" and the "same prosecuting authority," Gorsuch observes, the Court implausibly concluded that "the Double Jeopardy Clause has nothing to say about this case." Such reasoning amplifies the danger that Gorsuch decried in 2019, inviting the government to "try the same individual for the same crime until it's happy with the result."
I understand the 'sovereign' argument, but I believe it was rendered moot by that which Gorsuch himself cites, as quoted above.
This bodes badly for 2A decisions from the new Court.
Ping.
Doesn’t sound like it to me.
States are NOT subservient to the Federal Government.
You violate a state law that is also a federal law, you have 2 completely different governments charging you independently
Nothing complicated about this at all, nor is it a violation of the constitution.
There is a reason the only people who fell for this claptrap are Gorsuch, Kagan and Sotomayor.
Your first reading would need to be further researched or reread.
There was a case of Sexual Assault. As usual, the tribal system worked it down to assault and battery, hence such a low sentence.
I am thinking the VICTIM was probably VERY UPSET and wanted JUSTICE.
So....the Federal case was for aggravated sexual abuse. He was found guilty and got a new and heavier sentence.
Not a case of double jeopardy.
What Bush Sr did with the Fed’s Hate Crime WAS double jeopardy and set the ball rolling.......
I knew this case sounded familiar and went back and looked.....
Two bill of rights amendments were violated: both the 5th amendment's ban on double jeopardy and the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms.
I disagree with the decision as I also see it as double jeopardy but I see where they’re coming from.
The federal government acts independently of the states, having separate court systems, laws and processes. Even if the crime is the same incident, the laws being broken are two separate laws.
Frankly this could be fixed in congress easily - but don’t hold your breath.
THERE MUST BE A GREAT DEAL MORE TO THIS OPINION THAN WE KNOW!
I would not vouch for others, but I can not imagine CLARENCE THOMAS, or SAMUEL ALITO, ever voting AGAINST the prohibition of DOUBLE JEOPARDY!
I generally agree with the ruling. The solution to injustice is to write just laws and enforce them equally. Hate crimes laws are not just because they are applied unequally by design.
But it would be nice if the ruling provided a balance to the supremacy clause so that states could reasonably enforce things like unlawful entry into the country.
Can we make it a serious felony to be unlawfully present in a state?
Can state and local law enforcement assert equal jurisdiction at crime scenes and refuse to allow federal agents to disrupt an ongoing investigation?
Generally, this ruling will allow the continued abuse of power by the federal government and the DOJ in particular.
It is, by the clear reading of the constitution. Like asset forfeiture laws such rulings and laws are an afront to the principles of basic American justice.
The criminal was convicted by a Native American court and sentenced to 5 months. The court could not sentence more than 12 months. Then the US government got into the act, so technically two different nations, same crime.
Oh wait!
You mean to say Roberts voted the right way on this one, but Trump's faux "originalist" Gorsuch voted to the LEFT of Roberts AGAIN, and sided with the Marxist judges AGAIN?
Whoops.
Well, nothing to see here folks! Besides, I'm sure Gorsuch has some really awesome 'libertarian' reason for doing so. The wise Latina who agrees with him on all this stuff is very libertarian, right? And he's a textualist or whatever... and he's just bein' a good originalist and voting the way the writers of the law ORIGINALLY intended... like when he said the writers of the civil rights act TOTALLY had trannies in woman's restrooms in mind when they wrote the law the in 1964...whatever...
IT'S ONLY BAD WHEN ROBERTS DOES IT!
Now, move on, please.
They are saying that Native American Reservations, are in the United States, but have separate criminal codes and are sovereign.
Except; most accept native Americans as US citizens at birth (born on US soil and under the control of the US government. Further, since Biden can executive order shutdown of drilling and fracking on Native American reservations, they can no longer be considered sovereign.
I agree with the minority opinion here.