SCOTUS

[neeneko]

Attempted murder in most places requires the State to prove that the defendant (1) intended to kill a person; (2) had the present ability to carry out the killing; and (3) took a "substantial step" toward carrying out the killing. Showing up in Kavanaugh's neighborhood with the tools necessary to do the job and with the requisite intent probably satisfies all three elements.

On the other hand, calling 911 on yourself, at least functionally, negates that. He had neither the ability to preform the action nor took substantial steps because both the ability to act and the utility value of the steps were self negated. I know that is not how the laws works, but I'm a sim person ^_^

[Maybenaut]

Attempted murder in most places requires the State to prove that the defendant (1) intended to kill a person; (2) had the present ability to carry out the killing; and (3) took a "substantial step" toward carrying out the killing. Showing up in Kavanaugh's neighborhood with the tools necessary to do the job and with the requisite intent probably satisfies all three elements.

On the other hand, calling 911 on yourself, at least functionally, negates that. He had neither the ability to preform the action nor took substantial steps because both the ability to act and the utility value of the steps were self negated. I know that is not how the laws works, but I'm a sim person ^_^

Perhaps. But by the time he called 911 the crime of attempt was already complete. In fact, it was probably already complete by the time he left his house with his burglary tools and weapon.

[bob]

But by the time he called 911 the crime of attempt was already complete. In fact, it was probably already complete by the time he left his house with his burglary tools and weapon.

Per this CRS report, neither impossibility nor abandonment are defenses to the federal crime of attempt.

Regarding "substantial step":

It said that a substantial step is more than mere preparation. A substantial step is action strongly or unequivocally corroborative of the individual’s intent to commit the underlying offense. It is action which, if uninterrupted, will result in the commission of that offense, although it need not be the penultimate act necessary for completion of the underlying offense. Furthermore, the point at which preliminary action becomes a substantial step is fact specific; action that constitutes a substantial step under some circumstances and with respect to some underlying offenses may not qualify under other circumstances and with respect to other offenses.

It is difficult to read the cases and not find that the views of Oliver Wendell Holmes continue to hold sway: the line between mere preparation and attempt is drawn where the shadow of the substantive offense begins. The greater the harm of the completed offense, the farther from completion a substantial step will first be seen.

Edit: Fixed URL.

[Kendra]

I would like to offer my thoughts and prayers to Justice Kavanaugh after a man was arrested near his home with a gun.

[p0rtia]

This is the price you pay for freedom.

[raison de arizona]

McConnell and the Republicans are pretty hot on passing a law to prevent this, but I'm pretty sure we already have a law that makes murdering Supreme Court Justices illegal. What do we need another law for?

[raison de arizona]

A small group of pro-abortion protesters are outside Justice Kavanaugh’s home to demonstrate about the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade. Police formed a line in front of the home.

[p0rtia]

On Fox News, the report is that the White House in general and Jen Psaki in particular are responsible for the attempted attack. Apparently Psaki said something really bad on May 12th? Fox News didn't actually state what she said exactly, but it appears based on their reporting that it was something along the lines of, "Get a gun. Shoot conservative Supreme Court Justices." I'm sure they wouldn't be making that up. Also, something something, Joe Biden owes the United States an apology for this transgression.

So as the resident Jen Psaki fan, it was a pleasure to go back and rewatch the May 12 presser. FTR, Psaki did not mention guns, shooting, conservaitves, Supreme Court Justices or y'know, anything that could be remotely related to the Kavenaugh plot.

So of course, that proves it’s true!

Okay, so, the date might have been wrong. I'm going to rewatch the presser on the 13th (her last) tomorrow. Good times.

[Volkonski]

[Volkonski]

[Kendra]

I say the guy arrested near Kavanaugh’s home was a false flag by right wingers to divert attention from the J6 hearing. Why not.

[humblescribe]

But by the time he called 911 the crime of attempt was already complete. In fact, it was probably already complete by the time he left his house with his burglary tools and weapon.

Per this CRS report, neither impossibility nor abandonment are defenses to the federal crime of attempt.

Regarding "substantial step":

It said that a substantial step is more than mere preparation. A substantial step is action strongly or unequivocally corroborative of the individual’s intent to commit the underlying offense. It is action which, if uninterrupted, will result in the commission of that offense, although it need not be the penultimate act necessary for completion of the underlying offense. Furthermore, the point at which preliminary action becomes a substantial step is fact specific; action that constitutes a substantial step under some circumstances and with respect to some underlying offenses may not qualify under other circumstances and with respect to other offenses.

It is difficult to read the cases and not find that the views of Oliver Wendell Holmes continue to hold sway: the line between mere preparation and attempt is drawn where the shadow of the substantive offense begins. The greater the harm of the completed offense, the farther from completion a substantial step will first be seen.

Jus' tryin' to understand how the wheels turn with regards to these things....

CRS stands for Congressional Research Service, if my goggling is correct. Do these reports have the full authority of law, and are they as sacrosanct as the actual statute or case law? Or are they suggestions and interpretations that can be argued away for various legal reasons? If they are law, why aren't the incorporated into the statute?

To my way of thinking, this is an overbroad interpretation of "attempt." If I am armed with a deadly weapon and run after someone yelling and screaming, and then I come to my senses, turn around and go home, have I committed attempted murder? No shot was fired. The weapon was not pointed at the other person. I may have committed another crime or crimes, but I would not think that attempted murder was among them, because it would be nigh on impossible to prove my malicious intent to kill.

Since open carry is so prevalent in many states, I would suggest that the mere sight of a person with a gun in a holster or a rifle is prima facie evidence of attempted murder if he is acting strangely or otherwise in a location where he probably has no business being there. Are those folks charged with attempted murder?

Sorry to be so dense. This just does not reconcile for me. It seems that they are cherry-picking and manipulating the law.

[bob]

CRS stands for Congressional Research Service, if my goggling is correct. Do these reports have the full authority of law, and are they as sacrosanct as the actual statute or case law? Or are they suggestions and interpretations that can be argued away for various legal reasons? If they are law, why aren't the incorporated into the statute?

The CRS basically is Congress' research agency; it answers questions.

The CRS' opinions carry no force of law; they are as binding as a law-review article or an op-ed piece, that is, not at all. Its persuasiveness lies in its correctness. But the CRS employees are professionals: their job is to give the best, unbiased advice as possible.

So YMMV, but everything I've read by the CRS has been of at least competent scholarship.


With respect to attempt (in federal criminal law; the article doesn't discuss states' laws), I think that article fairly points out the law is fairly nebulous, as there can be (and has been) great disagreement on how substantial the step toward the completed crime must be.

A footnote provided the fuller quote from Holmes:

Eminent judges have been puzzled where to draw the line, or even to state the principle on which it should be drawn, between the two sets of cases. But the principle is believed to be similar to that on which all other lines are drawn by the law. Public policy, that is to say, legislative considerations, are at the bottom of the matter; the considerations being, in this case, the nearness of the danger, the greatness of the harm, and the degree of apprehension felt.

So I don't believe the CRS is cherry-picking; the CRS is pointing out this area for law is ripe for picking (by judges, prosecutors, etc.).

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/6 ... l-standing

Two nonsense cases could signal the end of Voting Rights by the Supreme Court

The shadow docket case appears insignificant on the surface, seemingly a simple paperwork question that the Supreme Court should not be spending its time on. A state judicial race in Pennsylvania in the 2021 general election between Republican David Ritter and Democrat Zachary Cohen for the final spot for Court of Common Pleas remains uncalled, with fewer than 75 votes between the candidates. At the center of the dispute are 257 mail-in ballots that were signed but not dated by voters. A federal appeals court ruled last month that the ballots should be counted, Ritter has asked the Supreme Court to intervene and Justice Samuel Alito complied.

Pennsylvania state law requires that mail-in ballots be submitted in the signed and dated envelope provided. The law does not require, however, that the date written on the envelope be the actual date it is signed. It can be any date, past or future, and still be valid. The 257 ballots in question just aren’t signed, and Ritter is arguing that the voters who cast them should be disenfranchised. To be clear, a voter who wrote 01/01/0001 on the envelope should have their ballot counted, Ritter argues, but someone who simply forgot to include the date shouldn’t. It’s a paperwork error.

Federal voting rights law demands the votes be counted, stipulating “if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election.” In other words, a minor paperwork error should not spoil a vote. The law was passed with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, attempting to stop exactly what Ritter is trying to do—a hunt through ballots cast by people of color to find any small error that could disqualify the vote. The law prohibits states from using such picayune errors to disenfranchise voters. It’s abundantly clear and should not even be a question that federal law demands those ballots be counted.

Ritter is arguing that the voting rights law is unconstitutional, because Congress doesn’t have the power to govern state and local elections (a premise rejected by the Court repeatedly in the past); that the U.S. attorney general is the only party that can sue a state for targeting voters for paperwork errors—the Voting Rights Act allows private parties, e.g. voters, to sue; and that federal courts should not be able to enforce voting rights provisions of the Civil Rights Act in an election that has already happened. Which would mean voters would have to know their votes are going to be tossed and would have to sue for protection before their votes are actually cast. Which is nonsense. The whole premise is nonsense and Alito is bringing it to the court, where his fellow extremists could very well accept it, in the secrecy of the shadow docket.

[Dave from down under]

Donnie failed to overthrow the US constitution on Jan 6.

But his SCOTUS appointees may yet succeed.

[humblescribe]

I'm waiting for the justices to declare that the Constitution (at least the parts that they do not like) is unconstitutional.

PS--

Thanks, Bob for your reasoned response!

[Suranis]

Honestly, the fact that he called 911 on himself can be reasonably read that he had no intention of going through with any attack at all. That suggests that the publicity was the actual goal.

Edit: Meh

[neonzx]

J6 hearings suspended for today due to "scheduling conflicts"..

Ominous?

[pipistrelle]

J6 hearings suspended for today due to "scheduling conflicts"..

Ominous?

I would assume that was about the Kavanaugh incident but who knows.

[Slim Cognito]

I was wondering if they're about to announce the Roe v Wade bullshit.

[June bug]

I was wondering if they're about to announce the Roe v Wade bullshit.

Especially when they say: “The Court may announce decisions beginning at 10am.”

[neonzx]

Not today. They released a number of opinions, but the one most are waiting for is not included.

Carry on.

[Slim Cognito]

(huge sigh of relief) I wasn't prepared for that today. Not that I'll ever be truly prepared, but not today Satan.

[neeneko]

yeah.. I have to cobble together a prototype for a meeting with our client's new boss tomorrow, and I am not sure I would have the willpower to focus on it if the biggie had dropped today.

[Suranis]

https://www.snopes.com/ap/2022/06/15/ju ... 1655319637

Justices Dismiss Trump-Era Immigration Case, in a Biden Win

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Wednesday it was wrong to wade into a dispute involving a Trump-era immigration rule that the Biden administration has abandoned, so the justices dismissed the case.

The court had said it would answer the question of whether Republican-led states, headed by Arizona, could pick up the legal defense of the Trump-era “public charge” rule that denied green cards to immigrants who use food stamps or other public benefits.

The high court heard arguments in the case in February and appeared on track to decide it. But in an unsigned, one-sentence opinion Wednesday, the court said it was dismissing the case. That leaves in place a lower court ruling in favor of the Biden administration that the states could not intervene.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote separately to say he agreed with the decision to toss the case. Roberts said that “bound up” in the case are “a great many issues beyond” the question that the court had agreed to decide. “It has become clear that this mare’s nest could stand in the way” of deciding the case “or at the very least, complicate our resolution of that question,” he wrote.

Roberts said the court’s action should not be taken as “reflective of … the appropriate resolution of other litigation, pending or future, related to the 2019 Public Charge Rule, its repeal, or its replacement by a new rule.”

Roberts was joined by three other justices in the court’s conservative majority: Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Gorsuch was appointed to the court by Trump. The former president’s two other nominees, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, said nothing.

At the center of the case was a federal law says that green card applicants cannot be burdens to the country or “public charges.” The Trump administration significantly expanded the definition, saying the use of public benefits including food stamps or Medicaid could be disqualifying. That led to court challenges, but the Supreme Court allowed the policy to take effect while those continued.

The Biden administration rescinded the rule and has since announced new guidelines. The administration had said that in practice, the government denied green cards to only three people under Trump’s rule and that their applications were later reopened and approved. Immigration groups have said the bigger impact of the rule was scaring immigrants, causing them to drop benefits or not enroll in them because of fears doing so could affect their applications to become legal permanent residents.

In addition to Arizona, the states involved in the case were Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia.

The case is State of Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, California, 20-1775.

Associated Press

Published 15 June 2022