Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Jefferson thought a lot of poo poo

quote:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Virginia man who is seeking to challenge one of his convictions for using a firearm in an attempted robbery. The ruling will allow the man to attempt to reduce his sentence by 10 years.

In a 7-2 decision Tuesday, the court decided that a conviction for attempted robbery under the federal Hobbs Act does not fit the definition of a "crime of violence," and therefore does not trigger an enhanced sentence when a firearm is used.

The ruling will allow the man, Justin Taylor, and other defendants who have received between five and 10 extra years tacked onto their sentences for attempted Hobbs Act robbery to now challenge those convictions and sentences.

quote:

In United States v. Taylor, Justin Taylor was charged with “conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and attempted Hobbs Act robbery,” which is robbery that affects interstate commerce. Taylor planned to steal money from Martin Sylvester with a co-conspirator. However when the co-conspirator met with Sylvester, the co-conspirator showed his gun to Sylvester demanding money. Sylvester did not comply with the co-conspirators demand and was fatally shot.

At the trial level Taylor pled guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and committing a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. §924(c). Taylor appealed the §924(c) conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which vacated Taylor’s conviction. The US Justice Department appealed the Fourth Circuit’s decision.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, said “Mr. Taylor may face up to 20 years in prison for violating the Hobbs Act. But he may not be lawfully convicted and sentenced under § 924(c) to still another decade in federal prison. ” Gorsuch stated that, because the government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Taylor “used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force,” Taylor did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

However Justice Clarence Thomas described the majority opinion as “narrow categorical approach to §924(c)’s elements clause” in his dissent. Thomas stated that the majority sought to “nullify” §924(c)(3)(B), which covered crimes that had a substantial likelihood of becoming violent. The court already struck down that particular provision in United States v. Davis, where it was found to be unconstitutionally vague.

Alito also dissented from the majority opinion. He said that the majority has “no textual basis” for the finding that “attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a ‘crime of violence’ under §924(c)(3)(A) because it is possible to commit that offense without attempting to use force.” He joined Thomas in commenting that the court “veered off into fantasy land.”

Groovelord Neato posted:

Going to go out on a limb and guess Thomas's dissent opens with a detailed recounting of the crime.

FlamingLiberal posted:

The Court is releasing decisions Thursday and Friday this week

FlamingLiberal posted:

Yes it will 100% be the last one they put out

Main Paineframe posted:

Cimber posted:

After the justices are safely 500 miles away from DC with their phones turned off.

Liquid Communism posted:

Won't matter.

They're not going to be able to run from this. History will show them to be monsters, and this decision is going to haunt them the rest of their careers.

Frankly, I'm fine with them being hounded for the rest of their time on the bench. Not like they feel there is a right to privacy.

FlamingLiberal posted:

It's a completely lunatic Trump judge writing the opinion, so yeah. There are now a lot of total cranks on the appellate courts thanks to the GOP essentially doing court packing once Trump came into office with all of these vacancies the GOP Senate held for him.

Cimber posted:

Today and tomorrow are going to be release days. Don't expect any R v. W decisions today, they are going to release that tomorrow or in July.

Monaghan posted:

I am honestly surprised by this decision, because it seemed like such a clear violation of the first amendment that I didn't think any court would uphold the law.

American appeal courts are crazy.

Blue Footed Booby posted:

Especially since there's no way to ban not buying certain brands of consumer products, so it can only possibly apply to boycotts accompanied by speech. This isn't good for anyone, even conservatives, and it makes no goddamn sense. I honestly don't see Roberts or Gorsuch biting.

Groovelord Neato posted:

I'd have less of a problem (only slightly so but still) if these people were at least consistent with their insane positions. You can't say money is speech and then say boycotts aren't protected speech that's totally incoherent.

Groovelord Neato posted:

I'd have less of a problem (only slightly so but still) if these people were at least consistent with their insane positions. You can't say money is speech and then say boycotts aren't protected speech that's totally incoherent.

bobjr posted:

https://twitter.com/mjs_dc/status/1539980793963053056?s=21&t=nQ8vv9rwyFKvtjoSkeCeFw

bobjr posted:

https://twitter.com/mjs_dc/status/1539980793963053056?s=21&t=nQ8vv9rwyFKvtjoSkeCeFw