Supreme Court's "Seinfeld" Cases - Mercedes-Benz Forum

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 7 (permalink) Old 10-04-2004, 02:25 PM Thread Starter
MTI
BenzWorld Elite
 
MTI's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: '85 2.3-16 '99 C280 '11 GLK350
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
Posts: 4,805
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Supreme Court's "Seinfeld" Cases

They're called that because they're cases the high court has taken on that are, like the TV show, really cases about "nothing" compared to the typical high powered stuff they handle, like presidential elections . . .

Anyway, I'm curious to hear what you mental giants think of these cases:

1) Can the Federal government overstep a state law allowing the use of medical marijuana, under the Interstate Commerce Act, when the ganja was grown, distributed and used within a single state?

2) Does a state law, which prohibits the purchase, across state lines, of cases of wine, violate the very same Interstate Commerce Act?

On a more serious note:

3) Sentencing 17 year olds to death.

4) Allowing judges, in sentencing, to use evidence that the jury was not allowed to hear.
MTI is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 7 (permalink) Old 10-04-2004, 02:45 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: Supreme Court's "Seinfeld" Cases

Quote:
MTI - 10/4/2004 4:25 PM

They're called that because they're cases the high court has taken on that are, like the TV show, really cases about "nothing" compared to the typical high powered stuff they handle, like presidential elections . . .

Anyway, I'm curious to hear what you mental giants think of these cases:

1) Can the Federal government overstep a state law allowing the use of medical marijuana, under the Interstate Commerce Act, when the ganja was grown, distributed and used within a single state?

2) Does a state law, which prohibits the purchase, across state lines, of cases of wine, violate the very same Interstate Commerce Act?

On a more serious note:

3) Sentencing 17 year olds to death.

4) Allowing judges, in sentencing, to use evidence that the jury was not allowed to hear.
IMO

1) No
2) Yes
3) No problem here, I think 14 is a good cutoff date for murder. Hell, I knew by age 14 that people who murder people get the gas chamber.

4) I was under the impression that the Supreme Court was taking away the right of judges to impose sentences, period. If they are still allowed, no, they should not include evidence not heard by a jury. Judges judge application of the law, juries judge evidence and the facts of the case.

FeelTheLove is offline  
post #3 of 7 (permalink) Old 10-04-2004, 04:19 PM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Supreme Court's "Seinfeld" Cases

I'd be interested the see which way the first two go. The Feds used the commerce clause to justify all kinds of federal meddling in states buisness for years but the court has backed away from it these last few years. Including striking down a law making it a fed crime to have a firearm in a school zone. That one was a shocker.

As you describe them the wine case would clearly be commerce clause and the feds would have jurisdiction, there must me something more if it's in front of the SC.

The weed case is interesting. I don't know how they will get there but I'd bet they find it affects interstate trade somehow.

The death penalty stuff was based on a case called Apprendi out of NJ I think. It said that if there are agravators that are considered for deciding if to impose the death penalty a jury has to hear them. It was upheld and expanded slightly a couple years later. I suspect they will follow the trend and say that all death decisions have to be jury.

The 17 YO is dead.

An interesting case is going to be Nigh v. Koons. It's a question of damages for violation of the truth in lending act. Congress amemded the law to raise penalties for violations from $1000 to 2x the finance charge. This court has been pretty unfriendly to consumers but the consumer groups have a pretty good strict construction argument. If the conservative justices rule against consumers they are going to have to go back on previously stated rules for statutory interpretation.

Forum killa


You have been banned for the following reason:
insulting mod

Date the ban will be lifted: Never
koop is offline  
post #4 of 7 (permalink) Old 10-04-2004, 04:39 PM Thread Starter
MTI
BenzWorld Elite
 
MTI's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: '85 2.3-16 '99 C280 '11 GLK350
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
Posts: 4,805
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Supreme Court's "Seinfeld" Cases

The SC's refusal to hear the telemarketing industry's claim that the "do not call" list violated the right to free speech, means that the lower court rulings that it did not, stand.
MTI is offline  
post #5 of 7 (permalink) Old 10-04-2004, 05:33 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: Supreme Court's "Seinfeld" Cases

The one I really want to see come up again is the "under God" on the pledge thing. I know people get all emotional about it, but it is such a clear violation of the establishment clause when it finally gets to them it has to be banned. The case is simple - the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law in regard to establsihment of religion". Yet the phrase "under God" was inserted in the pledge by an act of Congress, which means congress did in effect pass a law in regards to religion. Constitutionally, it is a simple case. Politically, what astick of dynamite. Its gotta blow sooner or later.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #6 of 7 (permalink) Old 10-04-2004, 06:48 PM
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 1986 300SDL
Location: Boston
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Supreme Court's "Seinfeld" Cases

Quote:
kvining - 10/4/2004 7:33 PM

The one I really want to see come up again is the "under God" on the pledge thing. I know people get all emotional about it, but it is such a clear violation of the establishment clause when it finally gets to them it has to be banned. The case is simple - the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law in regard to establsihment of religion". Yet the phrase "under God" was inserted in the pledge by an act of Congress, which means congress did in effect pass a law in regards to religion. Constitutionally, it is a simple case. Politically, what astick of dynamite. Its gotta blow sooner or later.
Good point. What I find amusing is that the same people screaming how gay marriage violates all kinds of long standing traditions and is against the intent of the framers of the Constitution (huh?) are also screaming that "Under God" has to stay in the pledge, even though it has only been in there 50 years.
LK ONE is offline  
post #7 of 7 (permalink) Old 10-04-2004, 06:56 PM
BenzWorld Extremist
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: '05 330i ZHP
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 1,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
RE: Supreme Court's "Seinfeld" Cases

I think it's retarded that (mainly male) politicians are trying to ban abortions and contraceptives, the woman should be allowed to decide for herself. What happened to womens rights? We already have too many people on the planet, and the Pope is also in favor of banning contraceptives. Either the population needs to decrease, or dumb people need to get smarter, otherwise this BS will keep going on.
E V12 Nerd is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome