Find a Supreme Court decision for the 2008-9 year in which the court was split, that is 7-2, 6-3, or 5-4. Make sure it is a US Supreme Court case, not a district court decision or an appeals court decision. Summarize the decision and how the justices split. Discuss whether this split was along ideological lines or seemed more based on something else. You MUST do this in your own words!!! You can find all cases from this year at the websitte: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08slipopinion.html
The cases have a "syllabus" that summarizes the decision and gives the split, thought the reading is not easy. To get an easier to understand description, you can use the case name to search for newspaper stories on the case.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
ENTERGY CORP. v. RIVERKEEPER, INC., et al.
ReplyDeletecertiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit
No. 07–588. Argued December 2, 2008 — Decided April 1, 2009*
* Together with No. 07–589, PSEG Fossil LLC et al. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., et al., and No. 07–597, Utility Water Act Group v. Riverkeeper, Inc., et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-588.pdf
This case was decided along with two other related cases on appeal from the Second Circuit court of appeals. The petitioners were regional powerplants who have cooling water intake systems that threaten the aquatic ecosystems that they draw water from, who claimed that the Clean Water Act allowed for the EPA to conduct cost-benefit analysis to determine the best technology available for compliance. The respondents were Riverkeeper et al., an independent environmental protection organization, who argued that because the Clean Water Act does not expressly allow for cost-benefit analysis by the EPA, such practice should not be allowed (due to the fact that such analysis generally does not take into account the true cost to the environment).
The issue in this case centered on the wording of Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, which states that "[a]ny standard...applicable to a point source shall require that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact." The lower court ruled that because other sections of the Clean Water Act explicitly provide for cost-benefit analysis, that if Congress intended for cost-benefit analysis to be permitted under this section, it would have explicitly stated so. Therefore, the lower court determined, the EPA was not allowed to use a cost-benefit analysis; rather, it could use cost only as a determining factor in deciding what technology is affordable and whether there is a less expensive technology capable of producing the same results.
The question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether, in omission of clear wording explicitly allowing cost-benefit analysis, the law was intended to expressly prohibit cost-benefit analysis, or whether the wording was ambiguously constructed in order to allow the EPA to use its own discretion. The ruling handed down by the Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision, stating in its majority opinion that "there is no statutory basis for limiting the comparison of costs and benefits to situations where the benefits are de minimis [Latin "of minimal" - meaning that the law is not interested in trivial matters] rather than significantly disproportionate."
The Supreme Court was split 5-1-3 on this decision. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito joined. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justices Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg. The dissenters argued that when a cost-benefit analysis is used in cases dealing with environmental protection, it easier to calculate cost of technology than to calculate cost to the environment, and so cost of technology tends to drive decisions. Justice Stevens wrote in the dissenting opinion: "Cost-benefit analysis often, if not always, yields a result that does not maximize environmental protection."
(continued in next comment)
(continued from previous comment)
ReplyDeleteOn the surface, the split seems to be along mainly political-ideological lines. The majority opinion, held by the more conservative Justices Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, seemed concerned with not placing undue financial burden on the large energy corporations for "minimal" environmental benefits, and that lack of explicit wording in this section of the Clean Water Act forbidding cost-benefit analysis is enough to allow it. The dissenting opinion, held by the more liberal Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, emphasized the fact that rarely are the true environmental costs taken into account in cases such as this, and therefore Congress's "silence" on this matter in the relevant section of the Clean Water Act should be taken as clear removal of the consideration of cost-benefit analysis.
I found this case interesting because it demonstrates that "conservative" doesn't always equal "judicial restraint"! It also demonstrates that the burden falls on Congress to make sure that it words everything clearly and specifically, if Congress wants to make sure that the laws are interpreted as intended.
Additional Sources:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-588.ZS.html
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Entergy_Corp._v._EPA
Other Articles of Interest:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20090406.html
http://law.widener.edu/NewsandEvents/Articles/2009/de042109mayamicus.aspx
http://www.drbilllong.com/SupCtII/Entergy.html
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2009/04/does-scalia-abandon-textualism-in-entergy-corp-v-riverkeeper.html
-- Jessica Moore
(sorry for taking up so much room... I found this case very interesting!)
In the Supreme Court Case Kansas vs. Ventris, Donnie Ray Ventris and Rhonda Theel were accused of robbery and murder. Both accused the other of firing the gun that shot and killed a man in his home. Theel pleaded guilty to robbery and the state dropped the murder charge against her in exchange for her testimony against Ventris. Additionally, and informant in Ventris jail cell overheard him confess to the murder. Ventris, however, testified that Theel was the murder. The Kansas Supreme Court said informant testimony was not enough to disregard Ventris statement. This was their decision because it violated the Sixth Admendment, the right to have an attorney present. The United States Supreme Courts magority decision was the opposite of Kansas. The U.S. Supreme Court was 7-2 that althought it "wasn't admissible as to guilt, it's admission into evidence didn't violate the Sixth Amendment when used to impeach a suspect's sworn testimony" (UPI).
ReplyDeleteThe split seems perfectly logical, as some agreed with the Kansas Supreme Court, but the majority did not. I agree with the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, that it is fair to use the information as eveidence, but not have it alone be enough cause for guilt because no lawyer was present and that would violate the Sixth Admendment. The U.S. Supreme Courts decision is perfectly logical and they seem to take into consideration the evidence, yet still follow the rules of the Constitution.
-Michelle R.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/29/Court-broadens-jailhouse-informant-use/UPI-29021241018407/
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/29/Court-broadens-jailhouse-informant-use/UPI-29021241018407/
Case Number 53
ReplyDeleteArthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the sixth circuit No.08-146.
Argued March 3, 2009- Decided May 4, 2009
Carlisle, Bushman, and Strassel wanted to decrease amount of taxes taken from the sale of their equipment. Arthur Anderson was the accountant for their company and due to his connection he had a suit filed against him. The IRS investigated and discovered that the taxes being placed were illegal. The final result of the case was a voting of six to three in favor of Anderson. Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito were in favor of the decision and Souter, Roberts, and Stevens were opposed to this decision. The case does not seem to discuss how the decision was made. Thus, this could lead me to believe that their decisions were based on something else.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/
Noemi Bauer
Kansas vs. Ventris
ReplyDeleteArgued January 21, 2009- Decided April 29, 2009
The cheif charged two people with murder and aggraveted robbery. Rhonda Theel pleed guilty to the robbery so the murder charge was dropped as long as she agreed to testify that Ventris was the shooter who shot Mr. Hicks (who supposedly abused children and had some sort of financial wealth). They where just going to confront the man but once they found out he had money it turned into something more. They where later found with Mr. Hicks truck and $300 of his money. The police also had an informant in the cell with Ventris who heard him say that he did kill the man. However in court Ventris still claimed that Rhonda was the killer.
The Kansas Spreme Court felt that the confession that was Ventris gave to the informant could not be used in court because it violated the sixth amendment. However the U.S. Supreme Court was split 7-2. I think that this is a confession and should be used in this case. A confession is a confession no matter when or where it came from.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1356.pdf
Sarah Cartrett
AT&T CORP. v. HULTEEN ET AL.
ReplyDeleteCERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT- No. 07–543. Argued December 10, 2008—Decided May 18, 2009
Suit was brought against collective companies known as AT&T for allegedly practicing unfair employment practices against women. AT&T was accused of not calculating pension and retirement benefits equally for all employees. The petition was filed because there was cause to believe that earned leave was accrued differently for pregnant women than other employees; pregnant women received less leave. Temporary disability was considered service time with the exception of pregnant women. Female employees felt that this was in direct violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978. This act is to protect women on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions from those who discriminate against them.
AT&T argued that the women case was not valid because the leave was taken prior to the enactment of the PDA. They argued that no sex based discrimination existed. The policy that was in place pre PDA is just a matter of unfortunate timing. The women all took maternity leave prior to the act and they are now retired with a shortage in benefits.
The court’s decision was that there were not any unlawful actions that had taken against Hulteen Et Al and the lower courts ruled in favor of AT&T. The Bush administration wrote a friend of the courts asking that the case be heard. The case was overturned May 18, 2009 in favor of Hulteen and the other women involved in the suit. The decision was reversed 7-2 by Justice David H. Souter; Justice John Paul Stevens filed a concurring opinion. The case was centered around many previous case pre and post PDA. It took approximately 41 years for Hulteen El Al to get a favorable decision but I would say that it is right on time with the state that the economy is in.
Shelette Johnson
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08
http://onthedocket.org/cases/2008/att-corp-v-hulteen
http://www.dcemploymentlawupdate.com/2009/05/articles
Kansas vs. Ventris Case 07-1356
ReplyDeleteApril 29, 2009
This case discusses the arrest of Donne Ray Ventris and Rhonda Theel who were involved in a burglary and murder. Theel testified that Ventris was the killer and charges for her were dropped. During court Ventris testified that Theel was the killer. Ventris was placed in a cell with another person (Doser) who was trying to get him to admit to the murder (without a lawyer present). The jury convicted him of aggravated burglary but the conviction was vacated by the Kansas Supreme Court. Ventris’s lawyers then argued that the 6th Amendment was violated because of the incident with Ventris and Doser in the cell. Originally the Kansas Supreme Court decision was that the 6th Amendment was violated. However, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that. The Supreme Court found that the 6th Amendment was not violated. The Supreme Court ruled that using the information from the conversations with Doser was legitimate evidence.
“In the Court’s majority opinion, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “Our precedents make clear that the game of excluding tainted evidence for impeachment purposes is not worth the candle”.”
The reverse vote was a split 7-2 decision. I believe that using the information from the cell conversations is beneficial as evidence because the Court is trying to prevent any type of perjury while under oath. If the Kansas Supreme Court decision had been upheld then wearing a wire, or video-taped conversation between a defendant and an informant could never be used.
Melanie Ellman
Kansas v. Ventris
ReplyDeleteCertiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas
No. 07-1356. Argued January 21, 2009-Decided April 29, 2009.
Rhonda Theel and Donnie Ray ventris confronted Ernest Hicks in the early morning of January 7, 2004. The pair claimed they were just going to ask about a rumor about Hicks abusing children. Hicks was shot during the encounter, and the pair took his truck, $300, and his cell phone. The pair where arrested and charged for murder and aggravated robbery. Before the trial, an informant was planted in Ventris's cell in order to get him to admit. The informant claimed Ventris stated, "h[]e'd shot this man in his head and in his chest" and he took "his keys, his wallet, about $350.00, and....a vehicle." During the trial, Ventris blamed the entire robbery and shooting on Theel, but Theel's murder charge was dropped after she plead guilty to the robbery and claimed Ventris was the shooter. The jury found Ventris to be guilty of both aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery, but the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the decision by saying the placed informant's statements could not be used for any reason because of the Sixth Amendment.
The outcome for the reverse vote was a split decision of 7-2. I agree with Melani when she says "using the information from the cell conversations is beneficial as evidence" because it was necessary to find out the truth. Yes, it may have violated Ventris' privacy and freedom, but he should have thought about that before he committed murder. Any evidence, no matter how it is obtained, should hold up in court.
Morgan Lockett
Arizona v. Gant
ReplyDeleteIn August 1999, the Arizona police appeared at the home of Rodney Gant in order for his arrest for failing to appear in court. However, Gant was not at his home at the time the police first arrived. He did arrive soon after, pulling into the driveway of his home. The police demanded that he step out of the vehicle, when they then searched the car and found drugs and a handgun. Gant was arrested and charged with possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. Before trial, Gant asked the judge to rule the evidence found in the car unconstitutional because the search had been conducted without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. The judge denied the motion and said that the search was due to Gant's lawful arrest and he was sentenced to three years of prison. Rodney Gant appealed and the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the conviction claiming it to be unconsitutional. In October of 2003 the case was sent back to Arizona state court. On April 21, the Supreme Court affirmed in a 5-4 opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens.
“Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest,” Stevens wrote. “When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies.”
Four Justices filed a concurring opinion raising the question: When police arrest the recent occupant of a vehicle who got out voluntarily, can they search the vehicle without a warrant?
Katherine Edmonds
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES v. DENEDO certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the armed forces Argued March 25, 2009—Decided June 8, 2009 No. 08–267.
ReplyDeleteIn July 1998, a United States Navy court-martial tried Jacob Denedo on counts of conspiracy, larceny, and forgery. In exchange for his guilty plea, Mr. Denedo was offered a reduced sentence that included three months of confinement, a demotion, and a bad-conduct discharge. Eight years later, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services began proceedings to deport Mr. Denedo, a Nigerian immigrant and lawful permanent resident of the United States, based on his court-martial conviction. In light of these developments, Mr. Denedo filed a petition with the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals for extraordinary relief and requested review of his court-martial and a writ of error coram nobis in order to achieve his pre-conviction state. He argued that his counsel at the court-martial was ineffective because he had specifically stated during the proceeding that "his primary concern and objective" was "to avoid the risk of deportation" and was less concerned about the amount of time he spent in prison.
At the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, the government motioned to dismiss Mr. Denedo's petition on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter. The court disagreed and found it had jurisdiction as provided by 28 U.S.C. Section 1651 - the All Writs Act. It then denied Mr. Denedo's petition. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces agreed that the Court of Criminal Appeals had jurisdiction to review the petition, but remanded the matter to the Court of Criminal Appeals for further fact finding in order to determine whether Mr. Denedo's counsel was deficient. The Supreme Court decision split 5-4, and I think the decision was fit for the crime.
-Amber Jamison
Kansas v Ventris
ReplyDeleteIn this case Donnie Ray Ventris and Rhonda Theel were charged with murder and other crimes. The government had placed an informant inside of of Ventri's cell where he heard Ventris confess to the shooting and robbery of Ernest Hicks. But at the trial Ventris had said that Theel committed the crimes.
Mr. Ventris felt as though his statements that he made in his cell should not be admissable in court because they violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. But Justice Antonin G. Scalia along with Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas, Stephen G. Breyer, and Samuel A. Alito said that the evidence was admissible because it would ensure the integrity of the trial process. Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed. They were not pleased because they believed that allowing the information violated Ventri's constitutional rights.
I believe that the split was ideological and I agree with the majority on this one. If a person is crazy enough to admit to killing and robbing someone then they should be held accountable for their actions. T me a confession is a confession as long as if it was not coerced.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008_07_1356
Elizabeth Haynes
Case Number 53
ReplyDeleteArthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the sixth circuit No.08-146.
Argued March 3, 2009- Decided May 4, 2009
Carlisle, Bushman, and Strassel wished to decrease the amount of taxes taken from the sale of their equipment. Anderson, the company's accountant, had a suit filed against him because of his connection. The IRS discovered that the taxes placed were illegal. The result of the case was a voting of six to three in favor of Anderson. Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito were in favor of the decision and Souter, Roberts, and Stevens opposed. How the decision was made was not discussed in this case. I believe the decisions were based on something else.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/
Leanne Josey
Arizona v. Gant
ReplyDeleteOn April 21st the Supreme Court confirmed a 5-4 opinion in the Arizon V. Gant by Justice John Paul Stevens. The reasoning behind all this is that in the year of 1999 police arrived at a house for the arrest of Rodney Gant for the failure to appear in court, but Gant was no were to be found. Shortly after the police arrived Gant pulled up into the driveway and the policed requested that he step out from the vehicle and the police pursued to search his car. The police found Narcotics and a Firearm in Gant's vehicle. The Airzon Police enforcement then charged Gant with the possesion of drugs paraphaneliea. During the trial Gant requested that the judge rule the evidence unconsitutional due to the Fourth Amendment of unreasonable searches and seizures, but unfortunent for Gant the judge denied his request. The proposing question that was thrown around was "can they search his vehicle without warrant". Frankly due to his failure to appear in court and given the circumstance that we don't know exactly what happened when the police arrested Gant, the police can search anyones car if there is probable cause. Maybe the vehicle reeked of some kind of illegal substance or some other probable cause. I think that there is absolutly no breathing room for this case. Gant was charged with possesion and paraphanliea of illegal substances and devices.
- Andrew Mewshaw
POLAR TANKERS, INC., PETITIONER v. CITY OF
ReplyDeleteVALDEZ, ALASKA
The city of valdez, al was trying to make oil tankers pay taxes just for using their ports. The tax was based on the capacity of ship and the tax was worded specifically to target oil tankers and other cargo ships over 95 feet long. However, many of the exceptions in the clause written were targeting oil tankers. The court ruled in a 7-2 decision that the city had no right to tax the ships based on a constitutional right that no state shall tax the imports or exports of another or restrain their consumption in any way that would put the neighbor state at an economic disadvantage.
The two arguers state that the charge is not a charge that the constitution clearly talks about. they argue that the Tonnage clause does not apply because the city also takes vehicles mobile homes and other items used in the oil mining and export industry. And so the tax is acceptable.
Chip dowdy
Boyle v. United States
ReplyDeleteCertiorari To The United States Court of Appeals Second Circut No. 07-1309 Argued January 14, 2009
Edmund Boyle and eight other men were indicted on racketeering and conspiracy charges. Mr. Boyle and eight other defendants participated in a series of bank robberies together over several years. While the members of the group changed periodically several remained as the same “base” group and acted together. They were indicted under the federal act known as "RICO" Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act. This act makes it a federal crime for individuals to participate in, or profit from, any association with a criminal organization.
Edmund Boyle attempted to have this dismissed claiming that the government could not prove they were part of an "organization" or enterprise.
Finding in favor of Boyle’s proposed structure requirement, which has been followed by a number of the circuit courts, prosecutors in future RICO actions would be required to show that a criminal enterprise exists independently of its predicate crimes.
Finding in favor of the United States, the Court would not only uphold Boyle's conviction, but also firmly establish the approach of a number of other circuit courts: that a RICO enterprise by association-in-fact can be inferred from evidence of a series of predicate crimes committed by the same group.
Stevens and Breyer dissented.
7-2 Split Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas and Ginsburg
ReplyDeleteI think that the court was along ideological lines. Most of us would think that given the circumstances of the case as presented...some of the details about the group of people involved, length of time and if they were each given specific duties during the robberies that they should find in favor of the United States. It is also weird or is this a paradox/contradiction of sorts/conflicting interests that we have the federal court system hearing a case involving how another department of government prosecutes its cases and defining the terms that can send someone to jail...
“STEVEN SPEARS v. UNITED STATES
ReplyDeleteON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, No. 08–5721. Decided January 21, 2009”
Steven Spears was charge for allegedly selling crack cocaine and powdered cocaine. Spears has a criminal history and was in possession of 50 grams of crack cocaine and 500 grams of powdered cocaine. Based on the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines, Spears was supposed obtain an offense level of 38 due to his criminal history and the established 100:1 ratio policy for crack cocaine to powdered cocaine. Instead the judges developed their own sentencing that allowed Spears to be sentence based from a 20:1 ratio. The change in the ration resulted in Spears receiving an offense level of 34 which allows him to be sentenced a lesser charge. The changing of the policy to benefit Spears caused an uproar especially when it was not in their power to do so.
Based on the Court’s decision I feel that was not along ideological lines. My reason is because they based their decision from Spears individual circumstances that they felt benefited him to receive a lesser charge. The United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines stated how this case should have been judged based on standard criteria and no special judgment for Spears should have been made. A policy is a policy regardless of the individual and their circumstances so in other words the judges should have upheld that policy. I feel the way a few of the judges felt that it was unfair to create a new categorical ratio for this charge for this individual, but if you change a policy for an individual everyone else in the United States will feel obligated to receive the same judgment or have the right for a policy to be updated to benefit their needs.
~Dretecia Pearson~
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-543.pdf
vs. Fox TV (07-582) There was 5-4 ruling in this case in the favor of the FCC, in the case of profanity, specifically, the "F-Word" and the "S-word"...and the question was actually about the FCC changing it's policy to a stricter one. Justice Scalia's opinion (as I understand it) was very strongly supporting the FCC's policy on "fleeting profanity", whatever that means. This seems like splitting hairs, with Fox and the FCC slap-fighting over what's allowed and what's not allowed...the FCC is turning into a censorship board, which undermines artistic freedom eventually. "Protecting" citizens from supposedly "foul" language is just one step to cutting out anything edgy, which is a slippery slope to fall down. Also, this case with Fox is very likely to be used as a precedent in the CBS case (with the Superbowl-breast-exposure from ages and ages ago) that the Supreme Court might hear after this. (the two incidents Fox is in trouble for were at awards shows, when Cher said "f*** her critics" and Nicole Richie talked about s*** in a Prada purse, the live broadcast seems to be the key issue.) The judges in this case seemed to be following their personal values. Scalia is strongly in support of the FCC, and it's policies, and defended them in his opinion with an endorsement. Ginsberg questioned the FCC's inconsistencies with certain broadcasts. She also seemed to want to push them into bringing the First Amendment into the issue. John Roberts has my respect, and in his opinion, he says that they're just used for emphasis and not to invoke anything sexual. Maybe I'm projecting my own opinion, but he seemed annoyed with the triviality of the case. Several of the other justices didn't indicate their position...and I don't know what that means. I assume they just didn't have anything to say on this case.
ReplyDeletePuckett V. United States
ReplyDeleteThis case deals with whether or not an issue that is not brought up in trial can be brought up later as an appeal. In this situation, James Puckett agreed to a plea bargin with the U.S. after being charged with bank robberies and the use of a firearm while commiting a crime of violence. The agreement was that with his guilty plea his sentence would be reduced. However, while awaiting trial, Puckett assisted in another crime, so at his trial the goverment alleged that he was no longer priviledged for the reduction in his sentence. Puckett has appealed saying that the government broke their end of the deal and therefore his guilty plea should be nulled.
The Supreme Court decision was split 7-2 when deciding whether or not Puckett is subject to the "plain error standard". The courts ruled in favor of the U.S. government saying that Puckett's substantial rights were not affected and that even if the government had held up its end of the deal, and reccomended a reduced sentence, the outcome would have most likely been the same for Puckett's sentencing. The two dssenting opinions were strong, claiming that Puckett's substantial rights were altered when he was convicted while the government did not hold up its end of the bargain. They claimed that in regards to the sentencing Puckett should be given some relief because the government convicted him under a breached agreement.
Although I would like to lock up criminals for the full amount of time they deserve, I do not think the courts decision is not ideological in this case. I agree with the dissenting argument that when an agreement is breached that both ends should be nulled unless both ends are still getting what they agreed to. In this instance this was not the case and I feel as if Puckett's substantial rights were violated.
Lynlee Satcher
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-9712.pdf
Part 1 of Bob’s comments:
ReplyDeleteExcellent analysis by Jessica on the clean water act and applying cost/benefit analysis to decisions by power companies. Clearly the conservative justices were activist in adding things to the law so that it benefited power companies over environmental concerns.
In Michelle’s, Sarah’s, Morgan’s, Elizabeth’s and Melanie’s case of KANSAS V. VENTRIS, the two dissenting justices were the two most liberal ones, Ginsberg and Stevens—no surprise in a rights of the accused case—they came down on the side of what we will later call the “due process” model of justice. Not all confessions are equal – those that are recorded when a defendant is aware of her or his rights and represented by counsel are certainly more credible than those reported by a second party by word of mouth that border on hearsay. But in this case the confession was allowed.
Noemi’s and Leanne’s case involving tax law and state contract law (in this case the right of Anderson to request that the dispute be arbitrated) illustrates one of the more complex areas of law. Because it does not cut along ideological lines, the breakdown of justices is also not along ideological lines – both the conservative and liberal wings of the court were split.
Shelette’s case of ATT v. HULTEEN is pretty clearly a woman’s rights case. One would expect this to fall along ideological lines. And it pretty much did. But Shelette had the finding backwards—the Court found that ATT did not discriminate and Hulteen et al lost! The two dissenting votes were from two of the most liberal justices that would be pro-women’s rights—Ginsberg and Breyer. The reason the other liberals did not go along was that it was not all that clear cut as it involved applying a law to a case that took place before the law was passed, a kind of ex post facto question. They felt it would be unfair to apply a law to something that was legal at the time. Had that not been involved, the decision probably would have been 5 to 4 one way of the other, depending on how Kennedy, the real swing vote for the current court went.
Part 2 of Bob's comments:
ReplyDeleteARIZONA v. GANTT, covered by Katherine and Andrew, may be one of those cases that is an exception that proves the rule. It involved rights of the accused and whether a search of a care was legal or not. On this one the liberals and conservatives were split. Two of the most conservative justices sided with the defendant and two sided with the police. As one lawyer said in reference to this case: “It's a strange coalition, this majority. You have the originalist/strict constructionists Thomas and Scalia joining the liberal Souter and Stephens, with Ginsburg rounding out the 5.” And Gantt won! The search was thrown out! Andrew got this wrong – we court decided that there was no probably cause and the evidence was excluded under the exclusionary rule, moving the court back in the due process direction away from the crime control model direrction!
US V DENEDO, the case used by Amber, involved another rights of the accused case, in this matter the question of whether someone can challenge the competency of counsel when the counsel informed him that pleading guilty would not cause him to be deported, and then later found out that he could be deported because of the guilty plea. The Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 split, that was along the expected ideological lines, found that the military court could re-examine the competency of counsel that could lead to a retrial. The liberals were concerned with the possibility that Denedo was misled by a bad lawyer to make a plea that was not in his self-interest. This fits the due process model. It is a limited decision, but at least held out the possibility that the military court could order a new trial if counsel was proven to have been ineffective. So Mr. Denedo still has a chance.
POLAR TANKERS, INC., PETITIONER v. CITY OF
VALDEZ, ALASKA, the case chosen by Chip is an interesting case of many justices (7 – all but two of the liberals) reaching the same conclusion but on several different grounds. The bottom line was that a state cannot tax an entity engaging in interstate commerce without the consent of Congress, which regulates interstate commerce. So Alaska lost. This was less ideological than a lot of cases, and is one where most agreed with relatively settled law.
Ashley covered the BOYLE V US case, which involved an appeal of the use the racketeering charge often used rather broadly by the Justice Department. And no, it is not at all unusual for the Courts to look at actions of another branch—that is classic checks and balances. The 7 vote majority went with the government and only 2 of the liberals went with questions about how broadly this law is used to charge those engaging with others to commit crimes. This was ideological, but two of the liberals went with the majority, so it was a strong majority.
Part 3 of Bob's Comments:
ReplyDeleteDretecia covered the SPEARS V US case, a case that involved sentencing and crack cocaine. The 7 vote majority supported allowing the judge to ignore the sentencing guidelines and allow a lower sentence while two of the more conservative justices (Alito and Roberts) wanted to impose the harsher sentence. The only surprise here is that they were not joined by Thomas and Scalia! This case involved the great disparity between sentences for crack cocaine and powder cocaine, the preferred drug for whites. Much controversy has surrounded giving much more harsh sentences for crack cocaine, which is more likely to be used by minorities—so the question is embroiled in the matter of race.
The FCC V FOX case covered by Josh is a classic liberal (less regulation of personal behavior) vs conservative (more regulation of personal behavior) applied to the media. Interestingly, the 4 more liberal justices sided with Fox tv in their stand that these fleeting statements should not be punished, But the 4 conservatives, joined by swing vote Kennedy, sided with a more powerful government wrt regulating what they see as immoral behavior—against Fox.
Lynlee covered the PUCKETT V US case, one that involved a sentencing question. And she outlines the case well. The 2 dissenting votes, who are liberals, take into account that his original plea of guilty was at least in part based on the promise of a lower sentence, and might not have been made had the lower sentence been promised. But most of the justices seem to have little sympathy for that position when Puckett committed another crime, which is why the government decided to violate the agreement. This was an unusual case, in part perhaps because few people are as foolish as Mr. Puckett—I suspect that he gets little sympathy—even two of the liberals who are most likely to demand exact due process in criminal proceedings had no sympathy for him.
Bob B
One last comment -- I wish one of you would have done the CAPERTON V A.T. MASSEY case. It was another 5 to 4 classic in which Kennedy was the swing vote. It is the case that was the basis for John Grisham's best seller THE APPEAL, a case involving a company funding the political campaign of a state supreme court candidate who won and then was the swing voe in reversing a decision that had cost the company millions. A really great book. The real case ended differently than the fictional one! Bob B
ReplyDeleteThanks for the insight on the case, now I understand better the classic checks and balances especially after completing the exam....
ReplyDelete