CNN - The Tass to the DNC - Is Now Propagandizing For Court-Packing

MyTeamIsOnTheFloor

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
47,410
20,166
113
Duckburg
Headline - "Supreme Court's staggering deviation from precedent"

"Save the child criminals from the extreme GOP-packed Court!"

The Court that approved of ACA and dumped on Trump is now "extreme" and "radical" and "get out yer thesaurus"

There is no such thing as a media check and balance anymore.
They are all in bed with one side or the other.
At least Fox admitted it.
CNN still thinks you are too stupid to see their shill for the Dims.
(Some are.)
They think they will all have Inner Party status at the Ministry of Truth and Public Enlightenment.


 

Stuffshot

All-American
Feb 20, 2008
8,258
3,577
113
Another stupid thread ..
As you frequently say to me, "Don't feed the troll." I think he announced a career reduction or retirement recently, so he's got more time to screw with people than you have time to counter.

Soon, he'll probably get over this and resume posting stuff with (ahem) substance. It's mid-afternoon on Sunday a few days before the Derby so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's trying out recipes for mint juleps and lost track. Give him a pimple and forget about it.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: sglowrider

MyTeamIsOnTheFloor

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
47,410
20,166
113
Duckburg
Do you have anything to offer on the case?

I read the case. It is pretty straightforward.

15 year old (JONES) lives with his grandparents. Gets caught with his girlfriend in his bedroom. Family argment ensues and settles down. Kid says to girlfriend "gonna hurt Grampa." Another family fight ensues later in the same day. Kid stabs Grampa 8 times with 2 knives (first one broke) and lets him bleed out. When found by cops later, gives a fake name, but makes an admission (Cop finds a knife on him and asks if its the one he used to kill Grampa - kid says he already got rid of that one.)

Jury has to decide between murder and lesser-included manslaughter. Jury said "murder." Under state law at the time "Life Without Parole" was a "mandatory" sentence. No judicial/"sentencer" discretion.

He argued on appeal that "mandatory" was unconstitutional. While his appeal was pending, SCOTUS decided that mandatory LWOP was unconstituional as to kids under 18. That case was MILLER.

MILLER required a "sentencer" (sometimes that is a judge - sometimes a jury - depends on state law) to have discretion when sentencing a juvenile. It was applied retroactively to Jones. He got re-sentenced.

Jones lawyers argued that factors such as his age and the evidence DID NOT mean the kid was irreparably corrupt, so he should get less than LWOP. Judge said "I have discretion to do that, but I won't - the factors regarding his CULPABILITY mitigate for LWOP." (All quotes here are paraphrased.)

This appeal that CNN says was a "staggering deviation" from precedent was based on an argument that under MILLER the sentencer MUST make a specific finding that the juvenile is NOT permanently incorrigible in order to use LWOP. Can't just hear and not accept that argument - must make a specific finding.

SCOTUS agreed instead with the State, i.e. that MILLER does not require that finding, and only requires that the sentencer have some discretion. Can ansd should hear things like that - does not have to make a specific finding based on a SCOTUS-imposed set of factors/rules.

In other words, and to paraphrase Wilford Brimley - "Miller don't say that and the right don't exist."

To the contrary, Miller does what a lot of these kinds of cases do - they don't set out a specific list of rules. They set out a broad rule and let the states/courts use discretion to flesh it out based on the specific and differing facts of each case under different laws in different states, with only a Constitutional umbrella setting the outer limits.

Miller requires/allows the sentencer to consider "an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics" and the “diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change.” (Real quotes.) That procedure/list of factors allegedly ensures that the sentencer affords individualized consideration to, among other things, a defendant’s “chronological age and its hallmark features. - which was the basis for the desired rule.

The kid's lawyer's argued for rules that arose out of death penalty cases. Dumb move. Let's the Court say "this isn't a death penalty cases - it a LWOP case - those cases can't don't shouldn't won't control." (As my mentor instructed me once - Lesson No. 1 - this is the United States - everybody is entitled to a bad lawyer.)

They flowered it all up so the clerks could try and impress guys like Goat, but that's the basics. The law required a discretionary sentence - the Mississippi trial court used discretion.

Pick any dissent and use it to call people radical and extreme names, CNN wil hire you.

CNN tried to act smart when they are really stupid, but that's Ok - its propaganda recepticles are stupid too.

PACK THAT COURT!
 

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
13,540
4,065
113
I read the case. It is pretty straightforward.

15 year old (JONES) lives with his grandparents. Gets caught with his girlfriend in his bedroom. Family argment ensues and settles down. Kid says to girlfriend "gonna hurt Grampa." Another family fight ensues later in the same day. Kid stabs Grampa 8 times with 2 knives (first one broke) and lets him bleed out. When found by cops later, gives a fake name, but makes an admission (Cop finds a knife on him and asks if its the one he used to kill Grampa - kid says he already got rid of that one.)

Jury has to decide between murder and lesser-included manslaughter. Jury said "murder." Under state law at the time "Life Without Parole" was a "mandatory" sentence. No judicial/"sentencer" discretion.

He argued on appeal that "mandatory" was unconstitutional. While his appeal was pending, SCOTUS decided that mandatory LWOP was unconstituional as to kids under 18. That case was MILLER.

MILLER required a "sentencer" (sometimes that is a judge - sometimes a jury - depends on state law) to have discretion when sentencing a juvenile. It was applied retroactively to Jones. He got re-sentenced.

Jones lawyers argued that factors such as his age and the evidence DID NOT mean the kid was irreparably corrupt, so he should get less than LWOP. Judge said "I have discretion to do that, but I won't - the factors regarding his CULPABILITY mitigate for LWOP." (All quotes here are paraphrased.)

This appeal that CNN says was a "staggering deviation" from precedent was based on an argument that under MILLER the sentencer MUST make a specific finding that the juvenile is NOT permanently incorrigible in order to use LWOP. Can't just hear and not accept that argument - must make a specific finding.

SCOTUS agreed instead with the State, i.e. that MILLER does not require that finding, and only requires that the sentencer have some discretion. Can ansd should hear things like that - does not have to make a specific finding based on a SCOTUS-imposed set of factors/rules.

In other words, and to paraphrase Wilford Brimley - "Miller don't say that and the right don't exist."

To the contrary, Miller does what a lot of these kinds of cases do - they don't set out a specific list of rules. They set out a broad rule and let the states/courts use discretion to flesh it out based on the specific and differing facts of each case under different laws in different states, with only a Constitutional umbrella setting the outer limits.

Miller requires/allows the sentencer to consider "an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics" and the “diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change.” (Real quotes.) That procedure/list of factors allegedly ensures that the sentencer affords individualized consideration to, among other things, a defendant’s “chronological age and its hallmark features. - which was the basis for the desired rule.

The kid's lawyer's argued for rules that arose out of death penalty cases. Dumb move. Let's the Court say "this isn't a death penalty cases - it a LWOP case - those cases can't don't shouldn't won't control." (As my mentor instructed me once - Lesson No. 1 - this is the United States - everybody is entitled to a bad lawyer.)

They flowered it all up so the clerks could try and impress guys like Goat, but that's the basics. The law required a discretionary sentence - the Mississippi trial court used discretion.

Pick any dissent and use it to call people radical and extreme names, CNN wil hire you.

CNN tried to act smart when they are really stupid, but that's Ok - its propaganda recepticles are stupid too.

PACK THAT COURT!
Mic drop.

Would like to add that the people who normally like to say you are a stupid poster have not provided content like that in months...in some cases ever.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
36,900
7,754
113
I read the case. It is pretty straightforward.

15 year old (JONES) lives with his grandparents. Gets caught with his girlfriend in his bedroom. Family argment ensues and settles down. Kid says to girlfriend "gonna hurt Grampa." Another family fight ensues later in the same day. Kid stabs Grampa 8 times with 2 knives (first one broke) and lets him bleed out. When found by cops later, gives a fake name, but makes an admission (Cop finds a knife on him and asks if its the one he used to kill Grampa - kid says he already got rid of that one.)

Jury has to decide between murder and lesser-included manslaughter. Jury said "murder." Under state law at the time "Life Without Parole" was a "mandatory" sentence. No judicial/"sentencer" discretion.

He argued on appeal that "mandatory" was unconstitutional. While his appeal was pending, SCOTUS decided that mandatory LWOP was unconstituional as to kids under 18. That case was MILLER.

MILLER required a "sentencer" (sometimes that is a judge - sometimes a jury - depends on state law) to have discretion when sentencing a juvenile. It was applied retroactively to Jones. He got re-sentenced.

Jones lawyers argued that factors such as his age and the evidence DID NOT mean the kid was irreparably corrupt, so he should get less than LWOP. Judge said "I have discretion to do that, but I won't - the factors regarding his CULPABILITY mitigate for LWOP." (All quotes here are paraphrased.)

This appeal that CNN says was a "staggering deviation" from precedent was based on an argument that under MILLER the sentencer MUST make a specific finding that the juvenile is NOT permanently incorrigible in order to use LWOP. Can't just hear and not accept that argument - must make a specific finding.

SCOTUS agreed instead with the State, i.e. that MILLER does not require that finding, and only requires that the sentencer have some discretion. Can ansd should hear things like that - does not have to make a specific finding based on a SCOTUS-imposed set of factors/rules.

In other words, and to paraphrase Wilford Brimley - "Miller don't say that and the right don't exist."

To the contrary, Miller does what a lot of these kinds of cases do - they don't set out a specific list of rules. They set out a broad rule and let the states/courts use discretion to flesh it out based on the specific and differing facts of each case under different laws in different states, with only a Constitutional umbrella setting the outer limits.

Miller requires/allows the sentencer to consider "an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics" and the “diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change.” (Real quotes.) That procedure/list of factors allegedly ensures that the sentencer affords individualized consideration to, among other things, a defendant’s “chronological age and its hallmark features. - which was the basis for the desired rule.

The kid's lawyer's argued for rules that arose out of death penalty cases. Dumb move. Let's the Court say "this isn't a death penalty cases - it a LWOP case - those cases can't don't shouldn't won't control." (As my mentor instructed me once - Lesson No. 1 - this is the United States - everybody is entitled to a bad lawyer.)

They flowered it all up so the clerks could try and impress guys like Goat, but that's the basics. The law required a discretionary sentence - the Mississippi trial court used discretion.

Pick any dissent and use it to call people radical and extreme names, CNN wil hire you.

CNN tried to act smart when they are really stupid, but that's Ok - its propaganda recepticles are stupid too.

PACK THAT COURT!
Well done. As you do eloquently said, the case is straightforward and clear cut. The kid had established clear consciousness of guilt. Your retirement is indeed the cooler’s gain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1 and mcmurtry66