Opinion: SCOTUS Ruling All But Guarantees State Criminal Charges For Trump

[babylonsister]

Opinion: SCOTUS Ruling All But Guarantees State Criminal Charges For Trump
Posted on Tue, Jun 18th, 2019 by Adalia Woodbury


On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 (Justices Ginsburg and Gorsuch dissenting) to uphold the “dual sovereignty” doctrine. That means that state law is separate and independent from federal law in relation to “double jeopardy,” that is, being putting on trial twice for the same act. Which means in turn that Trump loyalists charged and convicted under state law can’t be pardoned by Trump.

As many court watches noted, Monday was a bad day for Paul Manafort, because this ruling means Trump will not be able to pardon Manafort on convictions under State law. It was also a bad day for Donald Trump because it means his pardon power is smaller than he thought, and it’s very likely that he could face criminal charges under State law.

There’s a special sprinkling of karma in the fact that it was Justice Alito, a Federalist Society pick, who wrote the opinion that would uphold the dual sovereignty doctrine.

“We have long held that a crime under one sovereign’s laws is not “the same offence” as a crime under the laws of another sovereign. Under this “dual-sovereignty” doctrine, a State may prosecute a defendant under state law even if the Federal Government has prosecuted him for the same conduct under a federal statute.”

He went on to outline why the rule also applies to reversed circumstances, as was the basis for argument in Gamble vs. The United States.

The court rejected Gamble’s argument that the practice is a departure from the Constitution’s original understanding, describing the evidence supporting that argument as “feeble; pointing the other way are the Clause’s text, other historical evidence, and 170 years of precedent.”

more...

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/06/18/opinion-scotus-ruling-all-but-guarantees-state-criminal-charges-for-trump.html

[ScratchCat]

1. New York State

needs to complete their investigations and file charges before 2019 is over. This will put the GOP in the position of having to run someone else regardless of his histrionics. I believe many, many Republicans are secretly hoping this occurs.

[Roland99]

2. Ginsburg still dissented. I know she was signaling support of this when we all first learned...

of this case months ago

[ScratchCat]

3. The SCOTUS ruling

Has nothing to do with Donald Trump's potential charges. The case was not about State and Federal taxes. These are separate taxes owed to separate taxing authorities. If Trump has committed NY State "financial crimes", they have nothing to do with his federal taxes. This case never had any bearing on State vs Federal tax law. The SCOTUS can't even rule regarding State taxes because they are State taxes. Again, there is not and never was an issue with someone being charged for State tax evasion and Federal tax evasion.

[grumpyduck]

4. Right, but let's not forget

what Al Capone finally went to prison for. Granted it was a federal prison, but NYS has prisons too.

[smb]

5. Napoleon Boneyspurs Did Plenty Of Other Things...

...that are criminal under both federal and state law, to which this ruling would apply.

[Roland99]

6. Hunh? Taxes? I'm talking about the dual sovereignty / double jeopardy

[Roland99]

7. See this....

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211170155

[Cicada]

8. Cohen testified Trump used phony financials for bank loans. Bank fraud.

New York State can indict him even while he is President. They may not be able to jail him until he leaves office though. Using phony financials is bank fraud even if you never got the loan, even if you got the loan and made evert payment. I think this is a risk for Trump.

[UniteFightBack]

10. It is a big problem for him. The long game and outlook does not look favorable for him. nt

[pecosbob]

9. Firearms possession by a felon

Last edited Tue Jun 18, 2019, 07:02 PM - Edit history (3)

Gamble was about dual sentencing under state and federal statutes for an ex-felon in possession of a firearm, not about taxes. A very feeble attempt at challenging the concept of dual sovereigns, the State of Talibama and the United States. It's what in numerous cases allowed prosecution of civil rights violators in the South to be charged under federal law after the State refused to file charges (the precedent, that is).

My thoughts are the only judges that would dissent would be a true reformer or a true whackjob judicial extremist.

Edit...on further search the friend of the court brief asking the Supreme Court to overrule the dual-sovereignty exception was submitted by CAC, the Cato Institute, the ACLU and the ACLU of Alabama. So one liberal (Ginsburg) and one conservative (Gorsuch) both have a problem with the precedent while the rank and file are content with the exception.

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

https://www.versustexas.com/criminal/double-jeopardy/

I believe it's pretty common for felons charged with gun possession to challenge under double-jeopardy only to find that it hasn't been viewed that way by the courts...like ever. The people asking the SC to intervene in this instance were liberals. Repeat...the case was not brought before the SC by conservatives...

[triron]

11. Huh?