Posted on 02/13/2022 6:03:18 AM PST by rktman
In a nearly unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that judges cannot create "exceptions" to the United States Constitution.
"As the Supreme Court has recognized, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses is one of the bedrock constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants," said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of "Battlefield America: The War on the American People."
"At its core, the Sixth Amendment acts as a restraint on the government’s power to unfairly punish citizens in criminal cases, putting safeguards in place to prevent the accused from being indiscriminately stripped of their life and liberty."
Rutherford, along with several other civil rights organizations, had filed a friend of the court brief in Hemphill v. New York, explaining that judge-created exceptions to the Sixth Amendment aren’t allowed.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
No reason to get excited. Momentary lapse by the court. It is not difficult to go near and far in time to find the egregious exceptions the court has made to the Constitution.
Sotomayor the dissenting vote?
Like things that merely affect commerce, but which are not commerce, may be regulated by the federal.
Justice Clarence Thomas filed the dissenting opinion.
It seems Thomas was the lone dissenter. Sotomayor rendered the opinion, Alito concurred, Thomas dissented.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/595/20-637/
Remember this when they charge Trump!
Upon reading Justice Thomas’ dissent, it seems to me that his point is a procedural one and not a 6th Amendment ruling.
“Hemphill’s failure to properly present his Sixth Amendment claim to the New York Court of Appeals divests this Court of jurisdiction.”
Justice Thomas, dissenting.
This Court may review “[f]inal judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State” only where, as relevant here, a federal right “is specially set up or claimed” in the state court. 28 U. S. C. §1257(a). Because Darrell Hemphill did not raise his Sixth Amendment claim in the New York Court of Appeals, we lack jurisdiction to review that court’s decision. I respectfully dissent.
LOL! I was just going to post my “opinion” using almost the same wording. So, I get the technical point Thomas was making.
I read his dissent, and agree with him. I did not, however, read the majority opinion.
Indeed, to raise and advance arguments different that those previously claimed by either side is to cease to be a judge and to become an advocate for one side.
If the wise latina wrote it, it must be a hoot. Of course, it was her staff and it wasn’t too complicated. Right up her alley.
I agree with Thomas’ dissent, but this ruling NEEDED to be made. Without this opportunity, it may have been years before another chance to check the behavior of lower courts. While Thomas was correct in a procedural sense, the full court ruling simply affirms the Constitutional protections clearly spelled out in plain English.
Ditto
Then tell me why Trump was not able to defend himself (and us) during his phony impeachment “trials”?????? HUH?????
Justice Thomas dissented.
It is my belief that Trump is a deal maker and lacks the knowhow and the will to fight
The dissent was by Clarence Thomas.
The dissent is a how-to for when we need to use this process, so the left can’t bog it down in procedural delays.
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.