(Thread) A few words on Gamble v. US (the double jeopardy case before the Supreme Court that people think is about the presidential pardon powers).
On Thursday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in this case.
@jedshug and I wrote this piece:
slate.com/news-and-polit…
On Thursday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in this case.
@jedshug and I wrote this piece:
slate.com/news-and-polit…
1/ I received a private communication from the office of Harry Sandick, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the SDNY.
Sandick has made the following statement (and I agree with him) :
Sandick has made the following statement (and I agree with him) :
2/ “Justice Thomas and Justice Ginsburg – not ordinarily aligned – both have called for a reexamination of the dual sovereignty doctrine, so it is not a surprise that the Court granted cert. in Gamble. The doctrine has always seemed odd:
3/...why is it fair for someone to be prosecuted in multiple jurisdictions for the same crime? The rule seems to over-value the independent nature of the states.”
Some states like NY, which already prohibit a second prosecution, so Gamble won't effect such states.
Some states like NY, which already prohibit a second prosecution, so Gamble won't effect such states.
4/ If you want more explanation about what the dual sovereignty exception means, here's explainer:
I suspect that Trump critics and liberals who are in a panic over Gamble, and want Gamble to lose because they think a Gamble victory . . .
I suspect that Trump critics and liberals who are in a panic over Gamble, and want Gamble to lose because they think a Gamble victory . . .
5/ . . will make it harder for Trump to pardon people don't realize that they're rooting for countless people to serve double sentences on the outside chance that this MIGHT make it easier for Trump to pardon people. (But it probably won't, as Jedshug and I argued in Slate).
6/ Gamble v. US is really about punishment that is both unfair and violates the Constitution.
More on that here:
It's weird to see liberals taking the "states rights" argument where "states rights" allows for unfairness against defendants.
More on that here:
It's weird to see liberals taking the "states rights" argument where "states rights" allows for unfairness against defendants.
Dang. I want to go back and fix the two typing error I see.
But people have already retweeted, so I won't. Sigh.
But people have already retweeted, so I won't. Sigh.
