HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Judges Can Weigh New Fact...

Mon Jun 27, 2022, 12:13 PM

Judges Can Weigh New Factors in Crack Cases, Justices Say

Source: Bloomberg Law

Judges can consider new circumstances when resentencing criminal defendants punished when penalties for crack-cocaine were harsher, the US Supreme Court ruled.

In a 5-4 decision on Monday on a question the petitioner said affects thousands of people eligible for resentencing, the justices said the First Step Act allows district courts to consider intervening changes of law or fact in exercising their discretion to reduce a sentence.

In an unusual line-up, conservatives Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined the courtís liberal wing in the majority opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomajor.

The appeal was brought by Carlos Concepcion, who pleaded guilty to crack-cocaine charges and was sentenced to 19 years in federal prison in 2009. That was a year before the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act, which narrowed the disparity between crack- and powder-cocaine penalties. The 2018 First Step Act made the 2010 actís changes retroactive.

Read more: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/judges-can-weigh-new-circumstances-in-crack-cases-justices-say



Odd that Thomas sided with the liberals on this.

10 replies, 1193 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Judges Can Weigh New Factors in Crack Cases, Justices Say (Original post)
Polybius Jun 27 OP
Hugh_Lebowski Jun 27 #1
peppertree Jun 27 #2
speak easy Jun 27 #3
peppertree Jun 27 #5
JudyM Jun 27 #4
Baitball Blogger Jun 27 #6
Polybius Jun 27 #9
Baitball Blogger Jun 27 #10
RandySF Jun 27 #7
Cheezoholic Jun 27 #8

Response to Polybius (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2022, 12:18 PM

1. Finally a decent decision (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2022, 12:21 PM

2. Thomass was probably dozing off when he cast his vote

It's well known that Justice Pubic Hair seldom actually pays attention to proceedings - and merely waits for his fellow medievalists to decide.

Getting on as he is, he was no doubt half asleep by the end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peppertree (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 27, 2022, 12:23 PM

3. 'Thomass was probably dozing off when he cast his vote'

until he did a line

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to speak easy (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 27, 2022, 12:25 PM

5. Right. I forgot how much he loves his Coke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2022, 12:23 PM

4. Makes you wonder how it benefits him/his handlers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2022, 12:48 PM

6. It's not odd that Thomas sided with the liberals.

He's very transparent. He took a pass on Loving too. Not only would that have affected family members and people he might know, like himself, it is also an issue that would have alienated, not just black and white marriages, but if Loving is based on race, it would have also alienated Asian and white marriages. In the culture wars, that's a bridge too far if they still want any kind of support at all.

Thomas is more a political strategist than an objective justice. Or, he is influenced by political strategists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 27, 2022, 02:13 PM

9. By taking a pass, do you mean that he spoke about it?

Because he didn't vote on that case, it was way before his time on the Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 27, 2022, 02:29 PM

10. I mean, he gave us a prelude to the future cases that would be revisted by the Court,

the cases that determine privacy, like abortion: gay rights and contraception -- he mentioned all but Loving. Loving, which involved interracial marriage. Can you think of one reason why he would give Loving a pass?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2022, 12:50 PM

7. Gorsuch occasionally veers left.

Not that it makes him any good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2022, 02:11 PM

8. Thaks for the bone SCOTUS

Right up there with paper towel tossing in a hurricane devastated Puerto Rico. All these fascists are the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread