other SCOTUS rulings today

[Winehole23]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-police-in-home-searches-without-objector-present/2014/02/25/7bc1bb6a-9e5a-11e3-b8d8-94577ff66b28_story.html

[boutons_deux]

the VRWC hired the SCOTUS5 for, among other objectives, "interpret" the Constitution in the most AUTHORITARIAN manner, esp for suppressing the hoi polloi, non-Euro-Americans.

"originalist" :lol

"hard-core textualism"? :lol

Freedom! :lol

iow, No Law Is Above The Man

[Winehole23]

not sure whom you scoffing at. both rulings were joined by nominally liberal justices.

[boutons_deux]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented in Tuesday’s ruling, and was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Ginsburg quoted the late Justice Robert J. Jackson’s observation that the warrant requirement ranks among the “fundamental distinctions between our form of government, where officers are under the law, and the police-state where they are the law.”
She added, “Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement, today’s decision tells the police they may dodge it, never mind ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate.”
The court noted just last term, Ginsburg wrote, that the speed and ease with which police may now obtain warrants — over the phone or computer lines — meant that police should generally obtain one before having blood drawn from a suspected drunken driver.

[FromWayDowntown]

You guys can carry on, but those cases were argued in 2013 and those decisions were made in February 2014.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2013/

[Winehole23]

nice catch, FWD. gotta watch the mindless reposting from social media.

this one is of slightly newer vintage:


The Supreme Court on Friday struck down part of a federal law intended keep people convicted of repeated violent crimes in prison longer.

The justices ruled that a catchall phrase in the Armed Career Criminal Act defining what crimes make a defendant eligible for a longer prison term is too vague.


The court sided with Samuel James Johnson, who pleaded guilty to federal weapons charges in 2012. Johnson was sentenced to 15 years in prison — five more than he otherwise would have gotten — because of his prior convictions.
That law lists burglary, arson, extortion and the use of explosive as specific categories of previous crimes that can lead to a longer sentence. But it also says a violent felony is a crime that "otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another."


The court initially agreed to hear Johnson's case to decide whether his prior conviction for possessing a sawed-off shotgun qualified as a violent felony under the enhanced sentencing law.
But two months after hearing the case, the court ordered another round of arguments over whether the law's catchall phrase was so vague as to be unconstitutional.


Six justices agreed that the phrase is unconstitutional. Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said using "so shapeless a provision to condemn someone to prison for 15 years to life" violates the Constitution's guarantee of due process.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/national/2015/06/high_court_strikes_down_vague_part_of_career_crimi nal_law

[CosmicCowboy]

excellent. Until this ruling, any federal gun violation was automatically a "violent crime".

[FuzzyLumpkins]

excellent. Until this ruling, any federal gun violation was automatically a "violent crime".

Well you won't get so much into trouble for your illegal guns then. Good for you!