Notable and ignoble Supreme Court cases

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by waltky, Mar 6, 2011.

  1. waltky
    Offline

    waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    20,917
    Thanks Received:
    1,792
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Okolona, KY
    Ratings:
    +3,894
    "Supreme Court rules in favor of former Iowa drug addict"...
    :cuckoo:
    The Important Supreme Court Decision You Didn't Hear About Last Week
    6 Mar.`11 - If you think Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church made out well last week before the U.S. Supreme Court consider the case of Jason Pepper. The confessed former methamphetamine dealer won his own case last week at the high court -- and may not have to go back to prison for his old crime (he was released pending the appeal).
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. waltky
    Offline

    waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    20,917
    Thanks Received:
    1,792
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Okolona, KY
    Ratings:
    +3,894
    Supreme Court rules against drug companies...
    :cool:
    Court sides with investors on disclosing drug reactions
    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with investors who seek to sue companies for failing to reveal adverse information about their products. Justices ruled 9-0 against a drug company that did not disclose its cold medicine was linked to a loss of smell.
     
  3. waltky
    Offline

    waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    20,917
    Thanks Received:
    1,792
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Okolona, KY
    Ratings:
    +3,894
    Gotta get a warrant Supreme Court says to do GPS tracking...
    :eusa_eh:
    Warrant needed for GPS tracking, high court says
    23 Jan.`12 WASHINGTON – In a rare defeat for law enforcement, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed on Monday to bar police from installing GPS technology to track suspects without first getting a judge's approval. The justices made clear it wouldn't be their final word on increasingly advanced high-tech surveillance of Americans.
     
  4. theDoctorisIn
    Offline

    theDoctorisIn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    30,049
    Thanks Received:
    5,803
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    East, but still West
    Ratings:
    +11,992
    I agree with this completely.
     
  5. theDoctorisIn
    Offline

    theDoctorisIn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    30,049
    Thanks Received:
    5,803
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    East, but still West
    Ratings:
    +11,992
    This one too.
     
  6. theDoctorisIn
    Offline

    theDoctorisIn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    30,049
    Thanks Received:
    5,803
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    East, but still West
    Ratings:
    +11,992
    Also this one.

    3/3
     
  7. waltky
    Offline

    waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    20,917
    Thanks Received:
    1,792
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Okolona, KY
    Ratings:
    +3,894
    Yea, dat's right - if dey gonna come up here an' take jobs away from Americans to make money an' den not pay taxes - deport their sorry butts...
    :clap2:
    Supreme Court: $10K tax fraud deportable offense
    WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Tuesday a tax fraud of $10,000 or more is an "aggravated offense" that triggers an alien's deportation.
     
  8. waltky
    Offline

    waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    20,917
    Thanks Received:
    1,792
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Okolona, KY
    Ratings:
    +3,894
    Plea deals become a whole new ballgame...
    :confused:
    Supreme Court Makes Landmark Ruling On Plea Deals
    Mar. 21, 2012 - WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled for the first time Wednesday that the guarantee of effective legal representation applies to plea-bargain agreements, significantly expanding the constitutional rights of defendants as they move through the criminal-justice system.
    See also:

    The David vs. Goliath couple trump the EPA...
    :cool:
    Supreme Court sides with Idaho property owners over EPA
    March 21, 2012 | WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has come forcefully down on the side of an Idaho couple in its fight against the Environmental Protection Agency, unanimously ruling Wednesday that the couple can challenge an EPA order to stop construction of their home on property designated a wetland.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2012
  9. George Costanza
    Offline

    George Costanza A Friendly Liberal

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,087
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Los Angeles area.
    Ratings:
    +1,187
    What do these decisions (there were two of them in companion cases) really say? Do they say that a criminal defendant is entitled to counsel whenever a plea bargain is offered to him? Or do they merely say that if he happens to have counsel during a plea bargain, the attorney had better give him competent advice?

    In our courthouse (and in many other across the land, I suspect), this is a very important distinction. Our judges want to move cases as rapidly as possible. In order to do that, they will offer a plea bargain to a pro per (unrepresented) defendant without appointing the public defender unless the defendant either asks for the PD or says he/she does not want to plead guilty and take the offered plea bargain.

    Our office has long felt that this type of practice is violative of the Sixth Amendment, because uninformed and unadvised defendants are pleading guilty when they may have a perfectly good defense of which they are not aware.

    Sadly, I think these two cases say only that defendants who are fortunate enough to have counsel at arraignment, are entitled to competent plea bargaining advice - not that they are entitled to counsel when confronted with a plea bargain offer.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    It would seem a blend of both:

    The Court also rejected the ‘fair trial’ argument, where “[a] fair trial wipes clean any deficient performance by defense counsel during plea bargaining. “

    Link to the ruling:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-209.pdf
     

Share This Page