SCOTUS news and opinions

Some have called it a major offense.
Does two courtesies (that's my two cents):
Warns that danger draws near
To this land we hold dear
And also identifies whence.
 

Supreme Court declines to decide whether 12-person juries should be required for state felony cases​


By John Fritze, CNN
Updated 10:14 AM EDT, Tue May 28, 2024





[IMG width="548px" height="307.935px" alt="The US Supreme Court on April 23, 2024, in Washington, DC."]https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images...293213.jpg?c=16x9&q=h_833,w_1480,c_fill[/IMG]
The US Supreme Court on April 23, 2024, in Washington, DC.
Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images
CNN —
The Supreme Court declined Tuesday to hear a number of cases questioning whether state court juries must have a dozen members when they are weighing serious criminal charges.
A series of appeals challenging Florida’s use of six-member juries has been pending at the Supreme Court for months. Six states — Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts and Utah — allow six- or eight-member juries to decide felony cases.
The criminal defendants asserted that the practice violates the 6th Amendment.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a dissent from the decision to deny the cases.

“If there are not yet four votes on this court to take up the question,” Gorsuch wrote, “I can only hope someday there will be.” “In the meantime,” Gorsuch wrote, “nothing prevents the people of Florida and other affected states from revising their jury practices to ensure no government in this country may send a person to prison without the unanimous assent of 12 of his peers.”

Florida officials told the Supreme Court the state has been using six-member juries since 1877. And they said that roughly 5,000 criminal convictions were pending on appeal because of the issue. “For nearly as long as states have had a Sixth Amendment duty to provide criminal jury trials, this court’s message to the people of Florida has been clear: the jury structure that they have settled on for a century and a half fulfills that duty,” state officials told the Supreme Court.

Four years ago, in a case called Ramos v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court banned the use of non-unanimous juries for felonies that had been the practice in Louisiana and Oregon. The defendants said the practice in Florida has its roots in the Jim Crow-era and a desire to prevent Black Americans from serving on juries. The Supreme Court declined a similar appeal in 2022 from Arizona. At the time, two conservative justices — Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — said they would have heard the case. Pointing to a 1970 precedent that allowed fewer than 12 jurors, Gorsuch wrote that the opinion was “wrong the day it was decided” and that it “impairs both the integrity of the American criminal justice system and the liberties of those who come before our nation’s courts.”

 
After blaming his wife for both flags, he saidthe part of the link quoted below. Corruption hiding in plain sight.

Alito tells lawmakers he will not recuse from Supreme Court cases despite flag controversy​

By John Fritze, CNN

Citing the code of conduct the Supreme Court adopted recently in response to another series of scandals, Alito said the flags did not constitute grounds for recusal.

Alito said he was “duty bound” to reject requests from members of Congress to recuse. One of the letters was addressed to Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who had requested that Alito recuse from cases involving the attack on the Capitol. Another was addressed to members of the House who had made similar demands.

“A reasonable person who is not motivated by political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect the outcome of Supreme Court cases would conclude that this event does not meet the applicable standard for recusal,” Alito wrote. “I am therefore duty-bound to reject your recusal request.”

 
A "reasonable person", huh? Let me guess - the only person he needs to satisfy is himself.
 
Chief Justice Roberts wouldn't even agree to meet with a couple of Senators on the issue. Why would he? Even discussing it would acknowledge there's a little something to it. SCOTUS answers to no one, no reason they should start now.
 
I'm baffled that Congress has never imposed any limits on the Supreme Court. Has it really managed 200 years policing itself until now or has Congress just been wilfully blind?
 
I'm baffled that Congress has never imposed any limits on the Supreme Court. Has it really managed 200 years policing itself until now or has Congress just been wilfully blind?


Generally, it has limited the times that it has refused to be in step with what the public wanted. It may have lagged public opinion for the odd decade, but this may well be the first time in its history where it was actually systematically reversing gains the public clearly wanted. And doing so in a blatantly partisan way.
 
Top Bottom