SCOTUS decision might lead to release of thousands of violent felons

[libertybele]

SCOTUS decision might lead to release of thousands of violent felons

Justice Neil Gorsuch seems really determined to give violent gun felons a degree of due process our founders never envisioned. In yet another opinion, expanding upon previous decisions declaring the “crime of violence” statute unconstitutional, Gorsuch joined with the four liberal justices to vacate the criminal conviction of two violent robbers while declaring the statute upon which the conviction rested as unconstitutional. Meanwhile, there is no urgency from Congress to promote “criminal justice reform” that would actually stem the tide of judicially-mandated jailbreak of violent criminals.

One of the centerpieces of the Reagan-era tough-on-crime regime was the federal Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). ACCA established mandatory minimum sentencing for those who used firearms while committing crimes and enhanced penalties for repeat offender. The bill helped spawn the most precipitous drop in crime in our nation’s history by taking the most violent criminals (not just “nonviolent” drug offenders) off the streets. Numerous statutory clauses reference a “violent felony” as eligible for these penalties. Violent felony is described as including crimes such as assault, burglary, arson or a crime that “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”

Thousands of these cases were tried in the courts for three decades without any problems until in 2015, the Supreme Court in Johnson v. U.S. “struck down” that final clause of the statute, known as the residual clause, as unconstitutionally ambiguous. A year later, in another creeping pattern of applying their breaches in the Constitution retroactively, the Court in Welch v. United States applied this ruling retroactively to the thousands of people who were sentenced under this law since 1984. Justice Clarence Thomas vigorously dissented......

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/scotus-decision-might-lead-release-thousands-violent-felons/

[Bigun]

Justice Neil Gorsuch seems really determined to give violent gun felons a degree of due process our founders never envisioned.

IMHO, a blatant lie!

What Justice Gorsuch is determined to see is the Congress doing its damned JOB!

[jafo2010]

Congress doing their job...now that is funny.  They haven't done their jobs in decades!

[Bigun]

Congress doing their job...now that is funny.  They haven't done their jobs in decades!

Right!  Hence the problem!

[Chosen Daughter]

Sad.  Every way we turn criminals are being set free.  Illegal immigrants  are let loose without even notifying ICE.    

[Wingnut]

Non story.  Good Lord.  What a crock of shit.

[Chosen Daughter]

Is Gorsuch a secret liberal? Trump, GOP have reason to wonder.
By Joel D. Joseph, opinion contributor - 02/08/17 05:20 PM EST

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-judiciary/318565-could-court-pick-gorsuch-be-a-crypto-liberal-conservatives

Gorsuch sides with liberal justices in Supreme Court immigration vote
By Bob Fredericks
April 17, 2018 | 1:27pm | Updated

Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch on Tuesday sided with the Supreme Court’s liberal bloc and cast the deciding vote against the Trump administration in an immigration case.
The court in a 5-4 ruling said part of a federal law that makes it easier to deport immigrants convicted of crimes was too vague to be enforced.

The court’s decision concerns a provision of immigration law that defines a “crime of violence.”

Conviction for a crime of violence subjects an immigrant to deportation and usually speeds up the process.

A federal appeals court in San Francisco previously struck down the provision as too vague, and on Monday, the Supreme Court agreed.

“What does that mean? Just take the crime at issue in this case, California burglary, which applies to everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products,” Gorsuch said in his opinion.

“How, on that vast spectrum, is anyone supposed to locate the ordinary case and say whether it includes a substantial risk of physical force? The truth is, no one knows,” he said.

https://nypost.com/2018/04/17/gorsuch-sides-with-liberal-justices-in-supreme-court-immigration-vote/

Nothing like stacking the Supreme Court with more liberals.


https://reason.com/2018/09/03/gorsuchs-record-was-more-liber/

Well that really makes me angry.  Gorsuch making it harder to deport illegal alien criminals.

[Wingnut]

Is Gorsuch a secret liberal? Trump, GOP have reason to wonder.

Nothing like stacking the Supreme Court with more liberals.

You are stuck on stupid. 

[Chosen Daughter]

You are stuck on stupid.

That's all you have?  Judging by your classy reply I think you are the stupid one.

[Chosen Daughter]

https://www.westernjournal.com/kavanaugh-sides-with-liberals-on-planned-parenthood-ruling/

Kavanaugh sides with Planned Parenthood.

[Wingnut]

That's all you have?  Judging by your classy reply I think you are the stupid one.

I have seen your posts.  You are the dumb ass.

[libertybele]

I have seen your posts.  You are the dumb ass.

Wow!!  Why the attacks on a poster of this forum???  Absolutely uncalled for. Attack the politicians and others, but not those in here.  That's what makes this forum better than the others; @Chosen Daughter is far from stupid and many times I agree with her posts.

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were Trump's picks and both were supposedly conservative picks.  Even the MSM has reported that they have both sided with the other liberal justices at times.

I haven't been thrilled with either of those picks.

[jmyrlefuller]

https://www.westernjournal.com/kavanaugh-sides-with-liberals-on-planned-parenthood-ruling/

Kavanaugh sides with Planned Parenthood.

Kavanaugh's sidings with the liberal wing of the court disturb me more than Gorsuch's. Gorsuch has been outspoken and clear on the reasoning for his decisions, which are usually rooted in conservatism, as many who supported him figured they would be.

Kavanaugh's been pretty quiet as a jurist. He just concurs with other justices' opinions. From the small sample size I've seen, he and Roberts tend to agree a lot... which is unsettling when you remember the Obamacare travesty.

[libertybele]

Kavanaugh's sidings with the liberal wing of the court disturb me more than Gorsuch's. Gorsuch has been outspoken and clear on the reasoning for his decisions, which are usually rooted in conservatism, as many who supported him figured they would be.

Kavanaugh's been pretty quiet as a jurist. He just concurs with other justices' opinions. From the small sample size I've seen, he and Roberts tend to agree a lot... which is unsettling when you remember the Obamacare travesty.

Yes, he and Roberts agreeing, isn't exactly a good sign.

[Chosen Daughter]

Yes, he and Roberts agreeing, isn't exactly a good sign.

Aside from the allegations of sexual misconduct I had reservations about him.  Wasn't he a Bush guy?  And the famous speech from Susan Collins.  Wow, that should have given pause, but it was hailed as some historical speech.  Well those sexual allegations were a distraction from who he was.  Susan Collins is one of the most liberal Republicans.  On most circumstances she is just RINO.  Nothing Conservative about her.


What is there in the Constitution that would reject a states right to defund Planned Parenthood?


Neither one of these picks is Conservative.  The other Gorsuch decissions against the administration on deportation?  Wow, looks like Trump really has an excuse to do nothing.  Railing on liberal judges and then the decisions go to the Supreme Court where Trumps own appointments oppose law enforcement on illegal immigrants.


What a scam.

[Chosen Daughter]

And now Gorsuch is siding with liberals on child porn case.

Conservative U.S. Justice Gorsuch Again Sides With Liberals in Criminal Case

By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - For the second time in three days, conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch on Wednesday sided with his four liberal colleagues in a 5-4 ruling in favor of a criminal defendant, on this occasion an Oklahoma man convicted of possessing child pornography.

The court ruled that the right of Andre Haymond to face a jury trial under the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment was violated when a judge unilaterally imposed an additional prison sentence after Haymond violated the terms of his supervised release.

Haymond originally was sentenced to just over three years in prison and 10 years of supervised release after being convicted by a jury in 2010 of possessing pornographic images involving children. He was arrested in 2007 after an undercover agent caught him sharing images online.

After completing his sentence, Haymond was found in 2015 in possession of 59 additional images. A judge then imposed a new five-year sentence without a jury's participation.


https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2019-06-26/conservative-us-justice-gorsuch-again-sides-with-liberals-in-criminal-case

Please President Trump don't elect any more Supreme Court Justices.

[Bill Cipher]

The buyers’ remorse here is really amusing. 

Gorsuch is becoming interesting because he does seem to have a very strong commitment to individual liberty and a strong (one might say healthy) suspicion of government power when it comes to trampling on individuals. 

[EdJames]

And now Gorsuch is siding with liberals on child porn case.

Conservative U.S. Justice Gorsuch Again Sides With Liberals in Criminal Case

By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - For the second time in three days, conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch on Wednesday sided with his four liberal colleagues in a 5-4 ruling in favor of a criminal defendant, on this occasion an Oklahoma man convicted of possessing child pornography.

The court ruled that the right of Andre Haymond to face a jury trial under the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment was violated when a judge unilaterally imposed an additional prison sentence after Haymond violated the terms of his supervised release.

Haymond originally was sentenced to just over three years in prison and 10 years of supervised release after being convicted by a jury in 2010 of possessing pornographic images involving children. He was arrested in 2007 after an undercover agent caught him sharing images online.

After completing his sentence, Haymond was found in 2015 in possession of 59 additional images. A judge then imposed a new five-year sentence without a jury's participation.


https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2019-06-26/conservative-us-justice-gorsuch-again-sides-with-liberals-in-criminal-case

Please President Trump don't elect any more Supreme Court Justices.

I wouldn't get all up in arms over any characterizations of this decision in the popular media like US News and World Report.

The fact that they characterize the Justices as "Liberal" or "Conservative" is a very lazy and inflammatory approach.

Remember, no one should be clamoring for a  "Liberal" or "Conservative" Justice, we should seek to have Originalist/Textualist Justices appointed.

I suggest reading the actual opinion before making any judgments about it.

[jmyrlefuller]

And now Gorsuch is siding with liberals on child porn case.

Conservative U.S. Justice Gorsuch Again Sides With Liberals in Criminal Case

By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - For the second time in three days, conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch on Wednesday sided with his four liberal colleagues in a 5-4 ruling in favor of a criminal defendant, on this occasion an Oklahoma man convicted of possessing child pornography.

The court ruled that the right of Andre Haymond to face a jury trial under the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment was violated when a judge unilaterally imposed an additional prison sentence after Haymond violated the terms of his supervised release.

Haymond originally was sentenced to just over three years in prison and 10 years of supervised release after being convicted by a jury in 2010 of possessing pornographic images involving children. He was arrested in 2007 after an undercover agent caught him sharing images online.

After completing his sentence, Haymond was found in 2015 in possession of 59 additional images. A judge then imposed a new five-year sentence without a jury's participation.


https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2019-06-26/conservative-us-justice-gorsuch-again-sides-with-liberals-in-criminal-case

Please President Trump don't elect any more Supreme Court Justices.

So you believe in throwing someone in jail at a judge's discretion without a trial? Gorsuch is right. That's blatantly unconstitutional.

[Smokin Joe]

IMHO, a blatant lie!

What Justice Gorsuch is determined to see is the Congress doing its damned JOB!

Well, I fully expect to see wheel weights melt off of car rims in North Dakota in February just from being out in the weather about a million years before those grifters in COngress actually get to work.

If they want to play that game, void every executive branch regulation that followed from Congress saying 'the Department shall promulgate regulations....'

[Smokin Joe]

So you believe in throwing someone in jail at a judge's discretion without a trial? Gorsuch is right. That's blatantly unconstitutional.

I guess that depends on the terms of the man's Supervised Release. If that supervised release period had ended, then this is a separate offense, and should be tried as such, and the man's history (conviction record) taken into account in the subsequent sentencing as a repeat offender, if convicted.

We routinely toss offenders back in prison for Parole violations, Probation violations, and the like. They seldom get a new trial.

Possession of pornographic images of children, again, is a clear sign the man has not changed, nor is ever likely to change his ways. Possession, including "constructive possession" is pretty well legally defined.

The question here is one of whether this violation merits separate charges because the terms of his previous punishment had been met.

[Bigun]

Well, I fully expect to see wheel weights melt off of car rims in North Dakota in February just from being out in the weather about a million years before those grifters in COngress actually get to work.

If they want to play that game, void every executive branch regulation that followed from Congress saying 'the Department shall promulgate regulations....'

Exactly!

[Bill Cipher]

I guess that depends on the terms of the man's Supervised Release. If that supervised release period had ended, then this is a separate offense, and should be tried as such, and the man's history (conviction record) taken into account in the subsequent sentencing as a repeat offender, if convicted.

We routinely toss offenders back in prison for Parole violations, Probation violations, and the like. They seldom get a new trial.

Possession of pornographic images of children, again, is a clear sign the man has not changed, nor is ever likely to change his ways. Possession, including "constructive possession" is pretty well legally defined.

The question here is one of whether this violation merits separate charges because the terms of his previous punishment had been met.

No, the question is whether his punishment for the original crime can be extended beyond its original min-max range based on facts not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gorsuch was exactly right on this one, and Alito and company wrong. 

[Smokin Joe]

No, the question is whether his punishment for the original crime can be extended beyond its original min-max range based on facts not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gorsuch was exactly right on this one, and Alito and company wrong.

If not, then try this offense separately. That simple. The original prosecutor needs a swift kick in the hindparts on this one.

[Chosen Daughter]

No, the question is whether his punishment for the original crime can be extended beyond its original min-max range based on facts not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gorsuch was exactly right on this one, and Alito and company wrong.

He was still under his 10 years of supervised release.  It was a violation of his sentence.    You must be saying that everyone who violates court orders should have new trials?


What an advocate for criminals.