Swim Bike Run
Slowtwitch.com
  • Login >
Slowtwitch.com
Search menu
Hot Forum Topics

Poll

Best Recent Tech for Tri
What is the most beneficial recent bike tech used in tri bikes
View Results


Home > Forum > Lavender Room > SCOTUS Decision - US v. Davis (Gorsuch joins the liberals to strike down "crime of violence" law)

Lavender Room

Back To ForumPrint Thread

Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Tri
Classifieds
Lavender
Jobs
Notices
Re: SCOTUS Decision - US v. Davis (Gorsuch joins the liberals to strike down "crime of violence" law) [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy
Jun 25, 19 5:14
Post #26 of 35 (409 views)
BLeP wrote:
slowguy wrote:
BLeP wrote:
slowguy wrote:


You could, but you’d have to individually address each crime that you wanted to have a higher penalty read is that this law was designed to add penalty for any crime, if you committed it with a firearm.

The remedy is to pass an updated law with greater specificity. However, that’s not really the immediate issue. The issue is that potentially any conviction involving this law over the past 33 years now has a constitutional challenge


Yup. That what shitty law writing does, it leaves the door wide open to challenges.

5 Supreme court judges feel that the law is poorly written.

Fucking Dems (and one of the GOPs hand picked guys but we won't talk about that too much because this is clearly the DEMs fault) ruin everything.


I’m not saying the ruling is incorrect. It might be perfectly valid. I’m just saying that it raises some problems, and it’s not as easy as just raising penalties on other existing laws, as the previous poster suggested.

Yeah, it's not ideal. Are you suggesting that should be a reason to not rule this way? Or merely pointing out the elephant in the room?

I was pointing out that simply raising sentencing on crimes like armed robbery isn’t really so simple, and that it doesn’t address the larger problem that arises from the ruling, which is all the previous convictions.

Not arguing that the ruling is incorrect just because it may be painful.
Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS Decision - US v. Davis (Gorsuch joins the liberals to strike down "crime of violence" law) [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
bluemonkeytri
Jun 25, 19 6:18
Post #27 of 35 (395 views)
slowguy wrote:
JSA wrote:
Slowman wrote:
what matters: process or outcome? if the process isn't producing the outcome you want, change the process.

catch-all laws, or rules, are for the outcome-oriented. it's like "unsportsmanlike conduct". if i can't find a rule to disqualify you i'll just DQ you for that.


I hear what you are saying, but, the intent was to curb gun crime. The dissent cites numerous statistics showing it has worked. Of course, it has not ended gun violence. But, the numbers are compelling.

My issue, however, is the process in this case. A law, in effect for 33 years, showing tangible results, was rendered unconstitutional, based not on real world evidence, not on a change in circumstances, not on a change in technology, not on a change in societal norms, not on a change in facts, but, hypotheticals. That bothers me.


Has this law never been challenged before? I can understand the frustration with potentially undoing 33 years worth of seemingly valid convictions, but if it was never challenged before, then the court simply didn’t have an opportunity to rule previously. However, if it had been challenged and rule constitutional previously, that would seem to be a bit of a blow to the concept of precedent.

The concept has I believe, just last year. https://www.supremecourt.gov/...pdf/15-1498_1b8e.pdf

The crime of violence section of the Immigration and Nationality Act was struck down for being unconstitutionally vague. I haven't compared the language in the two statutes yet to comment on how close they were.
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS Decision - US v. Davis (Gorsuch joins the liberals to strike down "crime of violence" law) [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA
Jun 25, 19 9:06
Post #28 of 35 (367 views)
slowguy wrote:
JSA wrote:
Slowman wrote:
what matters: process or outcome? if the process isn't producing the outcome you want, change the process.

catch-all laws, or rules, are for the outcome-oriented. it's like "unsportsmanlike conduct". if i can't find a rule to disqualify you i'll just DQ you for that.


I hear what you are saying, but, the intent was to curb gun crime. The dissent cites numerous statistics showing it has worked. Of course, it has not ended gun violence. But, the numbers are compelling.

My issue, however, is the process in this case. A law, in effect for 33 years, showing tangible results, was rendered unconstitutional, based not on real world evidence, not on a change in circumstances, not on a change in technology, not on a change in societal norms, not on a change in facts, but, hypotheticals. That bothers me.


Has this law never been challenged before? I can understand the frustration with potentially undoing 33 years worth of seemingly valid convictions, but if it was never challenged before, then the court simply didn’t have an opportunity to rule previously. However, if it had been challenged and rule constitutional previously, that would seem to be a bit of a blow to the concept of precedent.

It has in various forms. It has been upheld multiple times by various Courts of Appeal and heard at least twice by SCOTUS. This is just one of those cases, but, it gives a little insight: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/...r-sentence-challenge

Bailey v. US (1995) also addressed it - https://en.wikipedia.org/...ley_v._United_States
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS Decision - US v. Davis (Gorsuch joins the liberals to strike down "crime of violence" law) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA
Jun 25, 19 9:08
Post #29 of 35 (362 views)
Slowman wrote:
JSA wrote:
Slowman wrote:
what matters: process or outcome? if the process isn't producing the outcome you want, change the process.

catch-all laws, or rules, are for the outcome-oriented. it's like "unsportsmanlike conduct". if i can't find a rule to disqualify you i'll just DQ you for that.


I hear what you are saying, but, the intent was to curb gun crime. The dissent cites numerous statistics showing it has worked. Of course, it has not ended gun violence. But, the numbers are compelling.

My issue, however, is the process in this case. A law, in effect for 33 years, showing tangible results, was rendered unconstitutional, based not on real world evidence, not on a change in circumstances, not on a change in technology, not on a change in societal norms, not on a change in facts, but, hypotheticals. That bothers me.


one could argue that neutering laws that stood for 33yr is itself monkeying with the process, in which case i'd agree with you. but, was this law ever tested? if it was tested and upheld a number of times, then it's messing with the process to disregard repeated legal opinions. but sodomy laws, and miscegeny laws, stood for decades or centuries. laws that are clearly archaic, or that don't have a legacy of precedents upholding their constitutionality, shouldn't benefit simply from tenure.

See my response to slowguy. The law has withstood many challenges.

Regarding your other examples, yes, I agree. As I mentioned, this decision was not based on a change in technology, change in societal norms, change in circumstances, or change in facts. It was based on a hypothetical exercise.
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS Decision - US v. Davis (Gorsuch joins the liberals to strike down "crime of violence" law) [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA
Jun 25, 19 9:15
Post #30 of 35 (353 views)
BLeP wrote:
slowguy wrote:


You could, but you’d have to individually address each crime that you wanted to have a higher penalty read is that this law was designed to add penalty for any crime, if you committed it with a firearm.

The remedy is to pass an updated law with greater specificity. However, that’s not really the immediate issue. The issue is that potentially any conviction involving this law over the past 33 years now has a constitutional challenge


Yup. That what shitty law writing does, it leaves the door wide open to challenges.

5 Supreme court judges feel that the law is poorly written.

Fucking Dems (and one of the GOPs hand picked guys but we won't talk about that too much because this is clearly the DEMs fault) ruin everything.

This time, 5 Justices felt this way. Previously, all 9 felt the other way.
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS Decision - US v. Davis (Gorsuch joins the liberals to strike down "crime of violence" law) [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BLeP
Jun 25, 19 9:20
Post #31 of 35 (351 views)
JSA wrote:
BLeP wrote:
slowguy wrote:


You could, but you’d have to individually address each crime that you wanted to have a higher penalty read is that this law was designed to add penalty for any crime, if you committed it with a firearm.

The remedy is to pass an updated law with greater specificity. However, that’s not really the immediate issue. The issue is that potentially any conviction involving this law over the past 33 years now has a constitutional challenge


Yup. That what shitty law writing does, it leaves the door wide open to challenges.

5 Supreme court judges feel that the law is poorly written.

Fucking Dems (and one of the GOPs hand picked guys but we won't talk about that too much because this is clearly the DEMs fault) ruin everything.

This time, 5 Justices felt this way. Previously, all 9 felt the other way.

Thanks Trump.
How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS Decision - US v. Davis (Gorsuch joins the liberals to strike down "crime of violence" law) [bluemonkeytri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA
Jun 25, 19 9:21
Post #32 of 35 (351 views)
bluemonkeytri wrote:
slowguy wrote:
JSA wrote:
Slowman wrote:
what matters: process or outcome? if the process isn't producing the outcome you want, change the process.

catch-all laws, or rules, are for the outcome-oriented. it's like "unsportsmanlike conduct". if i can't find a rule to disqualify you i'll just DQ you for that.


I hear what you are saying, but, the intent was to curb gun crime. The dissent cites numerous statistics showing it has worked. Of course, it has not ended gun violence. But, the numbers are compelling.

My issue, however, is the process in this case. A law, in effect for 33 years, showing tangible results, was rendered unconstitutional, based not on real world evidence, not on a change in circumstances, not on a change in technology, not on a change in societal norms, not on a change in facts, but, hypotheticals. That bothers me.


Has this law never been challenged before? I can understand the frustration with potentially undoing 33 years worth of seemingly valid convictions, but if it was never challenged before, then the court simply didn’t have an opportunity to rule previously. However, if it had been challenged and rule constitutional previously, that would seem to be a bit of a blow to the concept of precedent.


The concept has I believe, just last year. https://www.supremecourt.gov/...pdf/15-1498_1b8e.pdf

The crime of violence section of the Immigration and Nationality Act was struck down for being unconstitutionally vague. I haven't compared the language in the two statutes yet to comment on how close they were.

INA Crime of Violence:

18 U.S. Code § 16. Crime of violence defined The term “crime of violence” means—
[/url](a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or prop­erty of another, or
[/url](b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.




This crime of violence provision in question here:

18 USC 924(c): Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime—
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS Decision - US v. Davis (Gorsuch joins the liberals to strike down "crime of violence" law) [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BLeP
Jun 25, 19 9:26
Post #33 of 35 (348 views)
JSA wrote:
BLeP wrote:
slowguy wrote:


You could, but you’d have to individually address each crime that you wanted to have a higher penalty read is that this law was designed to add penalty for any crime, if you committed it with a firearm.

The remedy is to pass an updated law with greater specificity. However, that’s not really the immediate issue. The issue is that potentially any conviction involving this law over the past 33 years now has a constitutional challenge


Yup. That what shitty law writing does, it leaves the door wide open to challenges.

5 Supreme court judges feel that the law is poorly written.

Fucking Dems (and one of the GOPs hand picked guys but we won't talk about that too much because this is clearly the DEMs fault) ruin everything.

This time, 5 Justices felt this way. Previously, all 9 felt the other way.

It’s my understanding (correct me if I am wrong) that you can’t challenge a law twice for the same issue. So wouldn’t this be a new challenge that hasn’t been asked before?
How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS Decision - US v. Davis (Gorsuch joins the liberals to strike down "crime of violence" law) [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
bluemonkeytri
Jun 25, 19 9:31
Post #34 of 35 (344 views)
Same 5-4 makeup of the INA case as the current one too.
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS Decision - US v. Davis (Gorsuch joins the liberals to strike down "crime of violence" law) [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA
Jun 25, 19 10:37
Post #35 of 35 (307 views)
BLeP wrote:
JSA wrote:
BLeP wrote:
slowguy wrote:


You could, but you’d have to individually address each crime that you wanted to have a higher penalty read is that this law was designed to add penalty for any crime, if you committed it with a firearm.

The remedy is to pass an updated law with greater specificity. However, that’s not really the immediate issue. The issue is that potentially any conviction involving this law over the past 33 years now has a constitutional challenge


Yup. That what shitty law writing does, it leaves the door wide open to challenges.

5 Supreme court judges feel that the law is poorly written.

Fucking Dems (and one of the GOPs hand picked guys but we won't talk about that too much because this is clearly the DEMs fault) ruin everything.


This time, 5 Justices felt this way. Previously, all 9 felt the other way.


It’s my understanding (correct me if I am wrong) that you can’t challenge a law twice for the same issue. So wouldn’t this be a new challenge that hasn’t been asked before?

Each time it was nuanced, meaning a certain aspect of the language was challenged. Technically, each challenge was different. In reality, each challenge alleged the law was vague.
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Prev Next
Back To ForumPrint Thread

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.