SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›838 »

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:

?

As a fan of Citizen's United, I can confidently say that McCutchen was bullshit.

# ? Apr 27, 2014 16:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 8, 2024 16:08

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

Green Crayons posted:

As a fan of Citizen's United, I can confidently say that McCutchen was bullshit.

Can you elaborate? Do you mean the holding was bullshit, the dicta was bullshit, or both?

# ? Apr 28, 2014 03:51

Proust Malone: Apr 4, 2008

I know this is for current events on the court, but I saw this on reddit and felt the bile gurgle up:

U.S. Supreme Court posted:

Here, there is no doubt that the Black Hills were �taken� from the Sioux in a way that wholly deprived them of their property rights to that land. The question presented is whether Congress was acting under circumstances in which that �taking� implied an obligation to pay just compensation, or whether it was acting pursuant to its unique powers to manage and control tribal property as the guardian of Indian welfare, in which event the Just Compensation Clause would not apply.� U.S. Supreme Court,

UNITED STATES v. SIOUX NATION OF INDIANS, 1980

I was wondering if those of you who follow the court more closely have a lowlight list of opinions, or snippets from opinions, that similarly enrage you.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 18:17

Prism: Dec 22, 2007; yospos

Ron Jeremy posted:

I know this is for current events on the court, but I saw this on reddit and felt the bile gurgle up:

I was wondering if those of you who follow the court more closely have a lowlight list of opinions, or snippets from opinions, that similarly enrage you.

Is that intended to read 'Yeah, we took it. We haven't decided if we took it in a way that means we need to pay you for it or if we just control everything you own, but it's gone now and you can't have it back.'? Because that's pretty much how it reads to me.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 18:19

Proust Malone: Apr 4, 2008

Prism posted:

Is that intended to read 'Yeah, we took it. We haven't decided if we took it in a way that means we need to pay you for it or if we just control everything you own, but it's gone now and you can't have it back.'? Because that's pretty much how it reads to me.

That's how it read to me too. The court decided in a way I agree with, but the Sioux have refused the settlement money as just compensation because they want the land back instead. According to wikipedia, the money is still in the BIA hands, accruing with interest, currently over $1B.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 18:24

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Prism posted:

Is that intended to read 'Yeah, we took it. We haven't decided if we took it in a way that means we need to pay you for it or if we just control everything you own, but it's gone now and you can't have it back.'? Because that's pretty much how it reads to me.

It's basically:

"We took it under all conceivable definitions of taking.

If we took it under Power A, we owe you money for it because constitutionally Power A requires compensation.

If we took it under Power B, we don't because it doesn't."

The opinion then goes on to decide which way they did it. The snippet is just setting up what they're deciding.

They don't get it back either way, the only question was whether it counts as a 5th amendment takings or whether it was under the tribal land management power.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 18:25

Amused to Death: Aug 10, 2009; google "The Night Witches", and prepare for

Looks like the administration is getting a win at the court today over its clean air rules in regards to upwind pollution traveling across states, overturning the DC circuit in a 6-2 decision(Alito recused)

http://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environment/204658-supreme-court-upholds-epa-cross-state-air-pollution-rule

quote:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday in a 6-2 decision upheld a rule that allows the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate power plant air pollution that crosses state borders, handing President Obama an important regulatory victory.

The rule, a pillar of the Obama administration's second-term climate change agenda, requires 28 states in the East, Midwest, and South to cut back on sulfur, and nitrogen emissions from coal-fired power plants that "contribute significantly" to the air problems in other states.

When the court heard oral arguments late last year, the justices were troubled over how to address the fines and regulations aimed at states under the EPA's cross-state air pollution rule, but Tuesday's ruling gave a resounding answer.

�EPA�s cost-effective allocation of emission reductions among upwind States, we hold, is a permissible, workable, and equitable interpretation of the Good Neighbor provision,� wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the majority opinion.

Under the Clean Air Act, the Good Neighbor provision gives the EPA the authority to regulate interstate pollution that interferes with the country's ability to maintain or achieve national air quality standards, which protect public health.

Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the case.

�Today�s Supreme Court decision is a resounding victory for public health and a key component of EPA�s efforts to make sure all Americans have clean air to breathe," EPA chief Gina McCarthy said in a statement. "The Court�s finding also underscores the importance of basing the agency�s efforts on strong legal foundations and sound science."

First finalized in 2011 by the EPA, the rule was struck down last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, but Tuesday's decision reverses the district court's ruling, which sided with the upwind states that were challenging the EPA.

The upwind states argue that until the EPA fills in the blank on what "contribute significantly" means, they cannot adequately regulate or enforce the rule, leaving states to guess.

But the EPA contends that it allows states three years to form their own State Implementation Plan, and will afford upwind states flexibility.

Still, a number of energy companies are concerned.

The industry-backed Electric Reliability Coordinating Council said it is "essential for the EPA to remain flexible" with states when implementing the cross-state air pollution regulation.

"As we stand at the precipice of new carbon regulations, we are concerned that EPA may be emboldened to take actions that undermine cooperation with the states. If they so do, there could be severe consequences for electric reliability and affordability," said Scott Segal, director of the electric council.

Green groups cheered the Supreme Court for upholding EPA's "common-sense approach."

"The EPA safeguards follow the simple principle that giant utility companies shouldn't be allowed to dump their dirty emissions onto residents of downwind states," said John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The Environmental Defense Fund, and Sierra Club called the decision "a resounding victory for public health."

"What is critical next is that EPA promptly move forward with implementation," said Pamela Campos, an attorney with the defense fund.

Once fully implemented, the rule is expected to help cut back the "one in 20 deaths in the U.S., 200,000 non-fatal heart attacks and 90,000 hospital admissions" a year that are a result of ozone exposure and fine particle emissions.

It is also estimated that the rule will save people across the designated states billions in annual health and environmental costs.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 18:42

Party Plane Jones: Jul 1, 2007; by Reene; Fun Shoe

Scalia's dissent is pretty amazing because you can see him try to twist his logic to suit his agenda. Hell, he even cites his own decision in a prior case incorrectly to support his dissent.

Washington Post posted:

Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented. The dissenters may have the better of the textual argument (more about that later, time permitting), but Scalia�s opinion also contained a noticeable error. On page 12 of the dissent Scalia writes:

This is not the first time EPA has sought to convert the Clean Air Act into a mandate for cost-effective regulation. Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457 (2001), confronted EPA�s contention that it could consider costs in setting NAAQS.

Whitman did involve the claim that the Clean Air Act allowed the EPA to consider costs in setting the NAAQS, but it was not the EPA that argued in favor of considering costs. Rather, it was the industry petitioners who argued that the Supreme Court should overturn D.C. Circuit precedent precluding the consideration of costs in setting NAAQS, and it was the EPA that argued (successfully, as it turned out) that the Clean Air Act precluded the consideration of costs. The worst part of it is that Scalia should know this because the author of the Supreme Court�s decision in Whitman v. American Trucking Assns was none other than Scalia.

This is not the only problem with Scalia�s dissent. I was also struck by his opening complaint that �Too many important decisions of the Federal Govern�ment are made nowadays by unelected agency officials exercising broad lawmaking authority, rather than by the people�s representatives in Congress.� I agree with that sentiment, but Scalia may have done more than any other current justice to make that a reality. See, for example, his opinion in City of Arlington v. FCC, which authorizes agencies to determine the scope of their own regulatory authority if Congress has been insufficiently clear in defining statutory limits. But that�s a subject for another day.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/29/homer-nods-in-epa-v-eme-homer-city-generation/

# ? Apr 29, 2014 20:16

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Party Plane Jones posted:

Scalia's dissent is pretty amazing because you can see him try to twist his logic to suit his agenda. Hell, he even cites his own decision in a prior case incorrectly to support his dissent.

�Too many important decisions of the Federal Govern�ment are made nowadays by unelected agency officials exercising broad lawmaking authority, rather than by the people�s representatives in Congress.�

Unelected officials? Like say, supreme court justices?

# ? Apr 29, 2014 20:21

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

Omerta posted:

Can you elaborate? Do you mean the holding was bullshit, the dicta was bullshit, or both?

McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S. Ct. 1434, 1450-51 (2014) posted:

Moreover, while preventing corruption or its appearance is a legitimate objective, Congress may target only a specific type of corruption��quid pro quo� corruption. As Buckley explained, Congress may permissibly seek to rein in �large contributions [that] are given to secure a political quid pro quo from current and potential office holders.� 424 U.S., at 26, 96 S. Ct. 612, 46 L. Ed. 2d 659. In addition to �actual quid pro quo arrangements,� Congress may permissibly limit �the appearance of corruption stemming from public awareness of the opportunities for abuse inherent in a regime of large individual financial contributions� to particular candidates. Id., at 27, 96 S. Ct. 612, 46 L. Ed. 2d 659; see also Citizens United, 558 U.S., at 359, 130 S. Ct. 876, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (�When Buckley identified a sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, that interest was limited to quid pro quo corruption�).

Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder�s official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner �influence over or access to� elected officials or political parties. Id., at 359, 130 S. Ct. 876, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753; see McConnell v. Federal Election Comm�n, 540 U.S. 93, 297, 124 S. Ct. 619, 157 L. Ed. 2d 491 (2003) (Kennedy , J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). And because the Government�s interest in preventing the appearance of corruption is equally confined to the appearance of quid pro quo corruption, the Government may not seek to limit the appearance of mere influence or access. See Citizens United, 558 U.S., at 360, 130 S. Ct. 876, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753.

Spending large sums of money independently (Citizens United) is a difference in kind, not degree, with spending large sums of money by donating directly to candidates. The Court blurs the line and equates the two to hold that there is no threat of appearance of quid pro quo corruption when an individual donates money to a bevy of candidates.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 21:54

Allaniis: Jan 22, 2011

The Supreme Court slapped the Fed. Cir in the face again and returned more power to district courts with regard to attorney fees in patent litigation suits. See Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness and Highmark v. Allcare Health Management Systems.

How fast will Fed. Cir ignore it or try to route around it?

# ? Apr 29, 2014 22:48

StarMagician: Jan 2, 2013; Query: Are you saying that one coon calling for the hanging of another coon is racist?

Check and mate D&D.

Allaniis posted:

The Supreme Court slapped the Fed. Cir in the face again and returned more power to district courts with regard to attorney fees in patent litigation suits. See Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness and Highmark v. Allcare Health Management Systems.

How fast will Fed. Cir ignore it or try to route around it?

Can someone put together an effortpost explaining how these sorts of cases make it to the Supreme Court? I'm assuming that there's a legal organization somewhere that wanted more power for the District Courts, and it's one that has no opinion on and no interest in the merits of various health food companies. I would also be surprised if Octane Fitness were looking to spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to go all the way to the Supreme Court with whatever dispute it was.

So my question is, how did these groups get married up? Whose job is it to find these nobody companies in esoteric disputes and shepherd them to the highest court in the land, and why do they agree to it?

# ? Apr 30, 2014 04:51

Kiwi Ghost Chips: Feb 19, 2011; Start using the best desktop environment now!
Choose KDE!

StarMagician posted:

Can someone put together an effortpost explaining how these sorts of cases make it to the Supreme Court? I'm assuming that there's a legal organization somewhere that wanted more power for the District Courts, and it's one that has no opinion on and no interest in the merits of various health food companies. I would also be surprised if Octane Fitness were looking to spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to go all the way to the Supreme Court with whatever dispute it was.

So my question is, how did these groups get married up? Whose job is it to find these nobody companies in esoteric disputes and shepherd them to the highest court in the land, and why do they agree to it?

One of the decisions was that attorney fee awards are reviewed for abuse of discretion, but the more important one was that the Federal Circuit's interpretation of the attorney fee award part of the Patent Act was almost impossible to meet and was not the correct interpretation of the law.

So you had IP groups supporting the FC decisions because the FC loves IP trolls and lets them get off without a fee award constantly, while tech companies that are constantly being sued over software patents and the like opposed them.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 05:09

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

StarMagician posted:

Can someone put together an effortpost explaining how these sorts of cases make it to the Supreme Court? I'm assuming that there's a legal organization somewhere that wanted more power for the District Courts, and it's one that has no opinion on and no interest in the merits of various health food companies. I would also be surprised if Octane Fitness were looking to spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to go all the way to the Supreme Court with whatever dispute it was.

So my question is, how did these groups get married up? Whose job is it to find these nobody companies in esoteric disputes and shepherd them to the highest court in the land, and why do they agree to it?

There are a number and it depends by field, but in food and drug law my bet is that the most infamous is the Washington Legal Foundation. I don't know who funds them, but they bring test cases from a number of conservative, free market directions that are especially well-designed in terms of attacking the purview of the government. As a food and drug- focused guy, I'd say their biggest success was Washington Legal Foundation v. Henney, which basically prevented the FDA from regulating or limiting off-label prescription.

Speaking from an FDA- reg perspective, the WLF are unusually sophisticated legal actors, even by the standards of such groups. The frequency and ordering of cases and arguments made on their behalf attacking regulation of commercial practices make it look an awful lot like they have planned test cases targeting ambiguities in regulatory law on deck for every outcome they can anticipate for a given one of their suits- the sort of thing that takes a metric ton of research and planning, and long-term dependable funding, to arrange.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 05:13

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Allaniis posted:

The Supreme Court slapped the Fed. Cir in the face again and returned more power to district courts with regard to attorney fees in patent litigation suits. See Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness and Highmark v. Allcare Health Management Systems.

How fast will Fed. Cir ignore it or try to route around it?

The next time a district court awards shifted fees would be my bet.

StarMagician posted:

Can someone put together an effortpost explaining how these sorts of cases make it to the Supreme Court? I'm assuming that there's a legal organization somewhere that wanted more power for the District Courts, and it's one that has no opinion on and no interest in the merits of various health food companies. I would also be surprised if Octane Fitness were looking to spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to go all the way to the Supreme Court with whatever dispute it was.

Actually, it was definitely Octane - they were hoping to force ICON to pay their legal fees for the dispute. Not backed by anyone else, just their own interests.

(having billed something like 120k in work to clients in March all by myself, I can understand the desire to recover attorneys fees.)

# ? Apr 30, 2014 05:58

Allaniis: Jan 22, 2011

Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:

So you had IP groups supporting the FC decisions because the FC loves IP trolls and lets them get off without a fee award constantly, while tech companies that are constantly being sued over software patents and the like opposed them.

It also helps larger companies by fending off legitimate claims from smaller competitors, due to the increased risk.

Speaking of patents, the last case this term will be another patent case in Limelight v Akami.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 06:15

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Allaniis posted:

It also helps larger companies by fending off legitimate claims from smaller competitors, due to the increased risk.

These are basically nonexistent in practice though.

Akamai is being argued today. It's interesting, but Nautilus will likely have a larger impact on the patent world than either of it's bigger name brethren (Akamai and CLS bank, unless the Court does something more extreme than expected in CLS.)

# ? Apr 30, 2014 06:46

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

If they pull another Bilski, no wonder the Federal Circuit does is own thing

# ? Apr 30, 2014 12:54

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

StarMagician posted:

Can someone put together an effortpost explaining how these sorts of cases make it to the Supreme Court? I'm assuming that there's a legal organization somewhere that wanted more power for the District Courts, and it's one that has no opinion on and no interest in the merits of various health food companies. I would also be surprised if Octane Fitness were looking to spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to go all the way to the Supreme Court with whatever dispute it was.

So my question is, how did these groups get married up? Whose job is it to find these nobody companies in esoteric disputes and shepherd them to the highest court in the land, and why do they agree to it?

I can't really think of an advocacy group whose interest is "more power for the District Courts." In any event, although amicus briefs were filed in these cases, that happens all the time in any appeal granted by the Court. It looks like this was just the parties themselves really wanting to reverse the Federal Circuit for their own gain: everyone was represented by private counsel from a firm.

The correct standard of review upon appeal (Highmark) comes up in every single appellate case. It was only a matter of time for the Federal Circuit to get it wrong, and for SCOTUS to take the appeal as an easy case for error correction. Indeed, the petitioner/appellant had won in the District Court, and the Federal Circuit's de novo review reversed (in part) that win -- so there was a strong impetus to spend the money on appeal and get the Federal Circuit's own opinion reversed, because there would be a net financial gain if they won. And this is the typical calculus most clients have on appeal, I might add.

Similarly, attorneys frequently ask for attorney's fees (Octane Fitness). It was only a matter of time for that minor, but important, issue to work its way up the system. It probably helped that the Court decided to also grant Highmark, as the two cases go hand in hand.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 13:31

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

Also the Federal Circuit has a reputation for basically doing whatever the hell it wants and ignoring the Supreme Court.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 13:42

Emanuel Collective: Jan 16, 2008; by Smythe

So the Supreme Court just put out an amended Scalia dissent in Homer City, removing the erroneous citation. Some clerk is having a bad day

# ? Apr 30, 2014 14:47

Rygar201: Jan 26, 2011; I AM A TERRIBLE PIECE OF SHIT.

Please Condescend to me like this again.

Oh yeah condescend to me ALL DAY condescend daddy.

Emanuel Collective posted:

So the Supreme Court just put out an amended Scalia dissent in Homer City, removing the erroneous citation. Some clerk is having a bad day

I thought Scalia mostly wrote his own opinions?

# ? Apr 30, 2014 15:05

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Rygar201 posted:

I thought Scalia mostly wrote his own opinions?

Wouldn't stop the clerk from being the one with a bad day, though.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 15:11

FCKGW: May 21, 2006

When do we get the hear the fish destruction of evidence case? Next term?

That one sounds just so delightful to me.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 15:47

Kiwi Ghost Chips: Feb 19, 2011; Start using the best desktop environment now!
Choose KDE!

All I'm hoping for is cert grant in Ryan v. Hurles :sweatdrop:

# ? Apr 30, 2014 15:51

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

Rygar201 posted:

I thought Scalia mostly wrote his own opinions?

Even if he does, a clerk would be responsible for cite-checking (reviewing all the cites to make sure they're properly formatted and the underlying case/law says what the opinion says it does).

# ? Apr 30, 2014 18:55

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

Even so, the image of Scalia squinting at a draft in the middle of the night trying to figure out whether a period is italicized is deeply satisfying.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 19:08

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

FCKGW posted:

When do we get the hear the fish destruction of evidence case? Next term?

That one sounds just so delightful to me.

Why did they charge him under SOX? Aren't there a lot of more logical obstruction charges? :psyduck:

# ? Apr 30, 2014 19:10

OJ MIST 2 THE DICK: Sep 11, 2008; Anytime I need to see your face I just close my eyes
And I am taken to a place
Where your crystal minds and magenta feelings
Take up shelter in the base of my spine
Sweet like a chica cherry cola
-Cheap Trick; Nap Ghost

hobbesmaster posted:

Why did they charge him under SOX? Aren't there a lot of more logical obstruction charges?

He destroyed tangible property.

Otherwise known as fish.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 20:19

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

ayn rand hand job posted:

He destroyed tangible property.

Otherwise known as fish.

Which was evidence in a crime therefore surely theres other statutes that would work?

# ? Apr 30, 2014 20:26

Homura and Sickle: Apr 21, 2013

hobbesmaster posted:

Which was evidence in a crime therefore surely theres other statutes that would work?

I think it's because the fish thing was merely a civil infraction, and briefly looking at the part of the U.S.C. on obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. �� 1501 - 1521) I think that may be the only provision criminalizing this specific heinous fish-crime, as it just says obstructing "the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States."

Edit: Yeah it looks like this provision of SOX has been used as a broad weapon since the beginning of Holder's term at the DOJ. I think the Supreme Court wanted to grant cert on the most ridiculous fact pattern.

Homura and Sickle fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Apr 30, 2014

# ? Apr 30, 2014 20:57

KernelSlanders: May 27, 2013; Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

Jagchosis posted:

I think it's because the fish thing was merely a civil infraction, and briefly looking at the part of the U.S.C. on obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. �� 1501 - 1521) I think that may be the only provision criminalizing this specific heinous fish-crime, as it just says obstructing "the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States."

Edit: Yeah it looks like this provision of SOX has been used as a broad weapon since the beginning of Holder's term at the DOJ. I think the Supreme Court wanted to grant cert on the most ridiculous fact pattern.

Sounds like more picking defendants and finding crimes rather than the other way around. That trend started long before Holder though.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 21:06

StandardVC10: Feb 6, 2007; This avatar now 50% more dark mode compliant

FCKGW posted:

When do we get the hear the fish destruction of evidence case? Next term?

That one sounds just so delightful to me.

Could I get a little background on this one?

# ? Apr 30, 2014 22:11

Homura and Sickle: Apr 21, 2013

StandardVC10 posted:

Could I get a little background on this one?

There are apparently regulations requiring that fish of a certain species caught be over 20 inches long, and government officials found some fisher with some undersized fish and cited him. In doing so they requested that he keep the fish for an investigation, and he threw some of the fish out and replaced other ones with appropriately sized fish. He was charged with obstructing a federal investigation under 18 U.S.C. � 1519, which comes from Sarbanes-Oxley � 808. The whole thing is pretty dumb.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/28/us-usa-court-crime-idUSBREA3R0VL20140428

edit: Here's the Circuit Court opinion if you're curious:

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201116093.pdf

Homura and Sickle fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Apr 30, 2014

# ? Apr 30, 2014 22:18

esquilax: Jan 3, 2003

Jagchosis posted:

There are apparently regulations requiring that fish of a certain species caught be over 20 inches long, and government officials found some fisher with some undersized fish and cited him. In doing so they requested that he keep the fish for an investigation, and he threw some of the fish out and replaced other ones with appropriately sized fish. He was charged with obstructing a federal investigation under 18 U.S.C. � 1519, which comes from Sarbanes-Oxley � 808. The whole thing is pretty dumb.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/28/us-usa-court-crime-idUSBREA3R0VL20140428

Why is it pretty dumb? It's worded broadly enough that it may apply to fishery law, and the officers instructed Yates to keep the fish as a tangible record that the fish were undersized, and he clearly did so with the intent to obstruct justice. What's the major legal difference between destroying the fish and destroying, say, photographs of the fish next to a ruler or destroying a document listing the lengths of all the fish caught?

edit: I mean it's not exactly "three felonies a day" stuff here - he purposefully destroyed the fish in order to escape punishment for something that he knew or (as a fisherman) should have known was illegal

esquilax fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Apr 30, 2014

# ? Apr 30, 2014 22:37

Proust Malone: Apr 4, 2008

Jagchosis posted:

There are apparently regulations requiring that fish of a certain species caught be over 20 inches long, and government officials found some fisher with some undersized fish and cited him. In doing so they requested that he keep the fish for an investigation, and he threw some of the fish out and replaced other ones with appropriately sized fish. He was charged with obstructing a federal investigation under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, which comes from Sarbanes-Oxley § 808. The whole thing is pretty dumb.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/28/us-usa-court-crime-idUSBREA3R0VL20140428

edit: Here's the Circuit Court opinion if you're curious:

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201116093.pdf

Why should the defendant have the burden of maintaining the states evidence against him?

# ? Apr 30, 2014 22:42

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Ron Jeremy posted:

Why should the defendant have the burden of maintaining the states evidence against him?

Because they generally have the burden of not destroying evidence in their possession.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 22:45

Javid: Oct 21, 2004

The part where they tell him to keep them rather than taking them as evidence? It's like they wanted him to destroy them so they could nail him for that instead.

Kalman posted:

Because they generally have the burden of not destroying evidence in their possession.

Isn't that traditionally used as "you are under investigation, don't destroy anything" and then they actually take the stuff they need when they find it?

# ? Apr 30, 2014 22:48

Proust Malone: Apr 4, 2008

Kalman posted:

Because they generally have the burden of not destroying evidence in their possession.

But why was it in his possesion? If the state depends on the actual artifact to prove its case, the state should seize it and maintain it. If it were some other form of contraband you can be sure they would have. Hell look at asset forfeiture. They seize the poo poo out of that.

But here, they cite him and expect him to maintain the evidence? That's some bullshit right there.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 22:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 8, 2024 16:08

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

Ron Jeremy posted:

Why should the defendant have the burden of maintaining the states evidence against him?

The defendant has always had the burden of not destroying evidence. He is not being accused of "failing to maintain" the evidence, he is being accused of deliberately destroying it. It's bullshit to suggest the problem is he wasn't taking the evidence to a mechanic or something.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 23:02

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›838 »