Orrin Hatch filing regarding crimes pardoned by President can't be tried in States???

[luvallpeeps]

Found this in the comments section at another site. Can anyone verify? Evidently Hatch is trying to pull a fast one. [link:https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2FDocketPDF%2F17%2F17-646%2F63337%2F20180911145348110_17-646%2520tsac%2520Senator%2520Orrin%2520Hatch.pdf&h=AT3fPK5dVhp9rwbWkdCMz5RogBpbVOZJYy7U851nC3JuFVmQgwIbnNFDhk__1Iu3h-4UkzoCOCTfm-HZJQ1SkEcJHyu6h5qLmCzoTmIWQhfAOverYCYa1Iqvh2cnTifhiVeaBw|

[Roland99]

1. Go here...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211170155

[Roland99]

2. And post 3 here

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211175503#post3

[luvallpeeps]

3. If this is legit, how fast could it be done?

This is a case everyone should be aware of. Orrin Hatch has filed a "Friend of the Court'' thing that supports taking away states rights regarding filing charges against criminals if they've been pardoned or found innocent in fed court.

[angrychair]

4. Which will be promptly revoked

If a Democrat ever becomes president again

[euphorb]

6. It can't be revoked

This a case that involves an interpretation of the Constitution. If the Supreme Court agrees with the petitioner and severely limits state prosecution of persons found guilty of federal crimes, a Democratic administration could not simply "revoke" it.

[CincyDem]

5. The case is Gamble v US.

https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/gamble-v-united-states/

The critical element I see in this case summary is that it prevents states from prosecuting individuals for crimes that they plead guilty to at the federal level.

So...imagine ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN/WOMEN plead guilty to federal charges and Trump pardons the all. That's what this could allow.

So yeah, it's a big deal and he needs Judge K to be sure it goes 5-4. Today, best he can hope for is a 4-4 decision supporting the appellate decision against this case.

[spanone]

7. K&R...

[onenote]

8. The assumption that Kavanaugh's vote is needed in this case is almost certainly wrong.

This case was brought to the Court and accepted in significant part because of a joint opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg (and joined by Justice Thomas) suggesting that the time had come to revisit the dual sovereignty exception to the double jeopardy rule. To quote from the opinion written by Justice Ginsburg:

"The double jeopardy proscription is intended to shield individuals from the harassment of multiple prosecutions for the same misconduct. Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 187 (1957). Current “separate sovereigns” doctrine hardly serves that objective. States and Nation are “kindred systems,” yet “parts of ONE WHOLE.” The Federalist No. 82, p. 245 (J. Hopkins ed., 2d ed. 1802) (reprint 2008). Within that whole is it not “an affront to human dignity,” Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187, 203 (1959) (Black, J., dissenting), “inconsistent with the spirit of [our] Bill of Rights,” Developments in the Law— Criminal Conspiracy, 72 Harv. L. Rev. 920, 968 (1959), to try or punish a person twice for the same offense?"

[FromTheAshes]

9. Now this old cruddy numbnut right here is the true 'OD'....ORIGINAL DEPLORABLE.