Between Scylla and Charybdis

[PoliticalChic]

1.Last week, the Supremes came down with a decision on jury decisions. The said that for serious charges, jury decisions had to be unanimous.

2. I wanted to post a thread in disagreement with their view…I’m not a big fan of the Supreme Court….but upon reflection, I found that I could argue both sides, for and against: while I don’t believe that every issue is fodder for the Supremes, I could be in favor of having….not necessarily mandating….unanimous decisions in serious cases.



3. My view is to favor the 10th amendment wherever possible, over the collectivist view that every law and statute and regulation, must be identical throughout the nation.

In order to understand what the Court has stolen, one must have studied the basis on which our nation was created: Federalism.

Remember, the original conception for our government was federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..."
Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




4. In most cases, the states should retain their sovereignty, and make their own laws and rules. At the time of ratification, states were believed to retain a great degree of sovereignty.....that was baked into the recipe.

"Laboratories of democracy" is a phrase popularized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann to describe how a "state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."[1]

This concept explains how within the federal framework, there exists a system of state autonomy where state and local governments act as social "laboratories," where laws and policies are created and tested at the state level of the democratic system, in a manner similar (in theory, at least) to the scientific method. An example today would be the legalization of marijuana in Colorado despite the fact that it is illegal federally.

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This is a basis for the "laboratories of democracy" concept,…” Laboratories of democracy - Wikipedia



That basis for the Constitution’s ratification certainly puts restrictions on the Supreme Court’s statism...'put restrictions' in the past.
Of course, now it is accepted as the 'king' of America.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. Today, the NYSun posted and editorial that was worth reading.
Supreme Court: Dimming the Light of Sinai

I love arguments that are based on the religious fundamentals that went into the creation of our nation, whose Founders saw themselves as descendants of the Old Testament Hebrews.




6. “The case involves Evangelisto Ramos, who in 2016 was convicted in Louisiana of murder. The jury vote was ten to two. Mr. Ramos appealed, arguing that the law allowing non-unanimous jury convictions was a product of Jim Crow. Justice Gorsuch, writing for a majority of the court, credited this argument.

We ourselves want no part of Jim Crow or any of his relatives. That doesn’t mean, though, that all laws allowing a conviction by non-unanimous juries are racist. It happens, moreover, that when it comes to capital crimes, the sages of the Great Sanhedrin refused to convict when the rabbis were unanimous. They feared that a unanimous jury might be the product of an inadequate defense.” NYSun



An interesting and thoughtful view. And the very obverse of that of the Supreme Court.
So......we have one more decision of the Supremes, mandating obeisance under the rubric of "because I say so!"

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. The NYSun reminds us of something one will never hear in government school: that the origin of this nation “… has been so illuminated by the Light of Sinai. We may be a secular republic, but a bas relief of Moses — who, after all, brought the law down from Sinai — is embedded in the walls of our Congress and our highest court. Maybe it’s short-sighted to prohibit non-unanimous verdicts.”
Supreme Court: Dimming the Light of Sinai



8. “Justice Alito’s dissent argued that history could not answer the whole question: If many aspects of 18th-century jury practice were not mandated by the Constitution, some review of which functions were essential was required.

While Alito has a point, Gorsuch has the better argument, given the extensive evidence that legal scholars, state constitutions, James Madison, and the House of Representatives all considered unanimous verdicts a sufficiently fundamental part of the jury system to describe it as such. History, as usual, had the answer all along.

The unique problem was Apodaca. Four justices in that case agreed that the Sixth Amendment did not require unanimous juries. Four agreed that it did, and that the 14th Amendment applied that requirement to the states. In the middle, Justice Lewis Powell (often the swing justice of his day) agreed with the dissenters that the Sixth Amendment required unanimity, but decided that the 14th Amendment did not impose all Sixth Amendment rules on the states.” The Many Layers of the Ramos Case | National Review

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. “Which brings us to Justice Scalia. He was the guest in 2008 at a sitting of the editorial board of the Sun. It was a memorably warm and voluble evening. When the discussion turned to juries, we mentioned the rule of the Great Sanhedrin. The Great Scalia lit up like a Christmas tree. It was a joy to listen to him react to this counterintuitive instinct of Torah sages adjudicating the laws of God.


A few months later, we received a rocket from the Sun’s erstwhile Supreme Court reporter, Joseph Goldstein, alerting us to a comment Scalia had just made from the bench in a voting rights case. When it was pointed out that the Senate had voted unanimously, Scalia had piped up to say that the “Sanhedrin” had “a rule that if the death penalty was pronounced unanimously, it was invalid, because there must be something wrong there.” Supreme Court: Dimming the Light of Sinai

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. The specific enumerated powers to the Federal government are covered in
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
Those that are in any way related to courts and penalties:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;




I don't find any specific authorization for the federal government to mandate unanimous decisions.
Why isn't that the basis for a Supreme Court decision?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Antinomian Goals To Remove All Law With Salvific Creed "

* Stick With Non Violence Principles And Individualism *

The ninth amendment precedes the 10th and assures individual liberties for its citizens even against a state .

 

[PoliticalChic]

And this has what to do with the OP?

 

[PK1]

And this has what to do with the OP?

You mean ... what it has to do with the OP and posts # 2, 3, 4, & 5?

 

[PoliticalChic]

And this has what to do with the OP?

You mean ... what it has to do with the OP and posts # 2, 3, 4, & 5?

Feel free to answer the question.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Answers For Questions Without Acceptance "

* Antifederalism Rants For Overriding Statalism Overriding Individual Liberty *

I don't find any specific authorization for the federal government to mandate unanimous decisions. Why isn't that the basis for a Supreme Court decision?

Citizenship and equal protection are integrated with a birth stipulation that applies to the federal and to the states as us 14th amendment specified that at birth one becomes a citizen of the united states and that state wherein they reside .

The roe v was decision did return powers to the state , which means states are able to proscribe abortion in the third trimester , due to the onset of a state interest in a potential citizen where live birth became a relative standard for parturition << judicial activism >>.

* Poke Us Focus *

Feel free to answer the question.

Please restate the op question succinctly , as verbosity does not necessarily equate with being poignant ; else , please phrase " the question " to keep focus current .