Okay. After that gave people something to do after the Order List, let's address the opinions handed down on Thursday and Friday. I will split them into two for easier reading. Spoiler: no big hot buttons yet.
Thursday had four opinions, none on "hot button" issues though perhaps two were particularly notable. We have another extended and eloquent Gorsuch dissent on our duties to Native Americans. He was joined by the liberals. Thomas again had separate writing to provide his particular narrow view of federal power over tribes. He talks about the general "trust" relationship recognized. At the end of the day, I'm not sure how much that really adds to the situation. Such a relationship also makes sense.
The other case is notable for a long Jackson solo dissent (Sotomayor and Kagan jointly briefly dissent on more limited grounds) in a habeas case that cuts off the power of a person to bring an innocence claim. Note how the government found a way to win without supporting the broad position of the lower court but SCOTUS reached out to go further.
[Jackson (unlike Gorsuch) joined a majority in another case involving interpreting a criminal-related statute.
Another opinion split 6-3 with Sotomayor writing and three conservatives dissenting. Neither comes off as too important though most are for someone.]
One thing I respect is her statement that history, especially original history, is not the only thing that matters here. There is some precedent that suggests federal habeas power is strongest tied to the original habeas recognized at the Founding. But, that should not be taken that the original reach alone is what is in place. This sort of thing is absurd. It develops over time.
A Trump legal guy congratulated the winning advocate. This pissed some liberal legal people off, one speaking of the "moral bankruptcy" of congratulating blocking an innocence claim. She was specially chosen since the government (SG) did not support the broad claim that the six justices clearly wanted to take.
Okay. See, the guy thinks the correct side. At times, that even happens in somewhat unfortunate cases where a sympathetic plaintiff loses. Either way, what do you expect? The guy is going to be embarrassed about "his" side winning? And, I'm not sure if the person was ethically required to take the case. But, I suppose she very well agreed with the position too.
This statutory past is prologue to the case of Marcus DeAngelo Jones. Jones was convicted in 2000 of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to over 27 years in prison.
The SCOTUSBlog summary along with others highlights that this person is in prison for around three decades for a gun charge. Now, that isn't trivial or anything. His felonies and breadth of criming helped the solicitor general's argument that even granting his claim, wouldn't help him since he didn't really have "innocent" conduct here. Still, thirty years.
I don't think anyone but someone who murdered in prison or something (toss in the Charles Manson types) should be in a small cage for that long. And, he was already there for over 20 years. If the government wanted to toss this case -- they didn't want them to take it in the first place (had to be requested even to reply to the cert request) and then didn't defend the opinion below -- President Biden could have commuted the sentence.
I gather if that would have required the guy to drop the case, he would have done so. I think some of the attacks on Biden's alleged cruelty and lack of concern regarding the pardon system are at least somewhat unfair. But, this case does suggest how the system can be a cruel and malfunctioning machine.
Jackson is sure to note that she is just arguing for the right of Jones to make his case. I think it's strong enough to let him out of prison after him being there for around twenty-three years. Sometimes, I think a middle ground is the logical one. A third option. One that also addresses more than one thing. Yes, maybe now, you just commute the sentence.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!