An Unlikely Trio Files a Rare Supreme Court Protest

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Do you even know what the case was about?

YES, basically the trial judge gave a sentence that was too stiff. Did you even know there are nine justices and only three thought it worthy to hear the case. Seems to me that the trial judge broke no state law and if he did then it would have been overturned at state level or appellate court level long before reaching the SCOTUS.

I read this..

"If so, their constitutional rights were violated," Scalia wrote in the dissent that Ginsburg and Thomas joined. His reasoning was that because of the Sixth Amendment's explicit right to a trial "by an impartial jury," a judge cannot substitute his judgment for one already made by a jury on a finding of fact.


"It unavoidably follows that any fact necessary to prevent a sentence from being substantively unreasonable—thereby exposing the defendant to the longer sentence—is an element that must be either admitted by the defendant or found by the jury. It may not be found by a judge."

Other judges disagreed, I'll go with the majority since Ginsberg goes against it, she is a socialist piece of crap. Not one of the female justices deserves to be there. How many hundreds of far more deserving(better educated) male judges were passed over to put those dumbass liberal women there?
You tend to overlook so much . I do not. Remove Ginsberg and you have two judges , Scalia and Thomas disagreeing. I suspect that being the case you'd not take this position you are on now.
That piece of work Ginsberg fired your cookies up, didn't she?

By the way , I read and understand the OP in the threads I post.. Tis' why I choose to post them..-Tyr

[fj1200]

YES, basically the trial judge gave a sentence that was too stiff. Did you even know there are nine justices and only three thought it worthy to hear the case. Seems to me that the trial judge broke no state law and if he did then it would have been overturned at state level or appellate court level long before reaching the SCOTUS.

I read this..


Other judges disagreed, I'll go with the majority since Ginsberg goes against it, she is a socialist piece of crap. Not one of the female justices deserves to be there. How many hundreds of far more deserving(better educated) male judges were passed over to put those dumbass liberal women there?
You tend to overlook so much . I do not. Remove Ginsberg and you have two judges , Scalia and Thomas disagreeing. I suspect that being the case you'd not take this position you are on now.
That piece of work Ginsberg fired your cookies up, didn't she?

By the way , I read and understand the OP in the threads I post.. Tis' why I choose to post them..-Tyr

It is questionable that you do understand since you use the flimsiest of stories to justify rants that have no relation to the link. Nevertheless this...

The three petitioners were convicted by jury of dealing very small amounts of crack cocaine and acquitted on a charge of conspiracy to distribute drugs. But the sentencing judge essentially ignored the latter acquittal and imposed a prison term that, according to the petitioners, exceeded the guidelines for the dealing conviction alone.

... would have been more relevant to the actual case. Why should the judge have the power to impose sentences beyond what the conviction suggests?

Question withdrawn, you wouldn't know how to answer without prattling on about worthless socialist woman justices. And by also besmirching both Scalia and Thomas... known lefties that they are.

And Ginsburg is HOT!*

*fodder for idiots