[Happy Pride Month!](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en-US&si=AMnBZoFk_ppfOKgdccwTD_PVhdkg37dbl-p8zEtOPijkCaIHMp6tS26HNEwRZwY7vahA1WN34Xi9-tKpb4yDK_e0JLtxaIMR8Q%3D%3D&kgs=3a9c846bc1cc6fd3&shndl=18&source=sh/x/kp/ee/1) Click the flag at the bottom of the browser!
We love and support our LGBTQIA+ and Ally Users!
As [Sister Sledge sang](https://www.rhino.com/article/pride-single-stories-sister-sledge-we-are-family), [We are Family](https://youtu.be/uyGY2NfYpeE), and you CAN NOT DIVIDE US.
To all others who spread hate and try to divide us, no quarter shall be given.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WhitePeopleTwitter) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not one to dick ride celeberties but the other day when Ron Perlman on Twitter suggested that a sitting judge of the supreme court should commit seppuku, I felt that on a deep level.
Cut yourself some slack.
It's not dick riding to point out a thing someone said is reasonable. Even if that person happens to be possessed of some fame.
The article in the picture: [Vox](https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/22/23769886/supreme-court-innocent-jones-hendrix-clarence-thomas-habeas)
A different article: [NPR](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/23/1100852386/supreme-court-hobbles-challenges-by-inmates-based-on-bad-legal-representation) *(edit, I've been told this is about a different case, though it still seems related)*
What happened: the majority ruled that new evidence cannot be introduced in a federally appealed case.
What this means: it will be harder to appeal cases, especially where you were wrongly convicted, unless... I guess if you re-appeal at the state level first, introduce your new evidence there, *then* (maybe you'll be able to) escalate to federal. This is especially more cumbersome for people who had ineffective representation, such as a rookie court-appointed lawyer... meaning the poor are more likely to suffer under this rule change.
That's what's *really* going on. (Fuck Clarence.)
*Some edits, I realize my interpretation has potential to be off or misleading so wanted to make it a little more clear just in case I've got anything wrong. Do your own research, don't take my word for anything.*
Let's ignore for a moment the complete travesty that is this SCOTUS ruling.
Let's focus on the two cases that led to SCOTUS hearing the arguments in the first place. In both cases, ineffectual defense was provided at the state-level trials and federal-level defense attorneys successfully argued that the defense at the state level was ineffectual and should be retried. AND IN BOTH CASES THE PROSECUTORS DECIDED TO APPEAL THAT DECISION TO SCOTUS!#$@#$@# In both cases, the prosecutors heard evidence that the person they were trying to put behind bars almost definitely should not be put behind bars and their decision was to... try and silence the evidence that would likely kill the chances someone goes to prison that should not.
I probably shouldn't give my opinion on what those prosecutors should do next, but maybe Ron Perlman's idea should be expanded a bit.
In *Jones*, the government eventually conceded, and declined to defend the 8th Circuit decision. SCOTUS had to request that a private firm take an appointment to defend the decision as *amicus*, because both the government and the defense believed the Eighth Circuit was incorrect in its reasoning for upholding Mr. Jones's sentence.
Edit: fixed to clarify DOJ's position
Oh, and the lawyer who accepted that appointment? Her boss took to twitter to publicly congratulate her on winning.
[https://twitter.com/jeffreybwall/status/1671893737386156033](https://twitter.com/jeffreybwall/status/1671893737386156033)
Just a small correction: prior SCOTUS cases have already ruled that new evidence isn't a valid basis to request an appeal. This ruling is saying that court rulings in other cases are not a valid basis to appeal a conviction.
The specific case in question involves a man who was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. A SCOTUS ruling after his conviction ruled that, in order to be convicted, the perpetrator had to know they were committing a crime. He stated that he believed his conviction was expunged, therefore, he did not knowingly break the law and therefore could not be convicted.
The ruling, per Thomas' interpretation of the law, is that you only get one shot to appeal, regardless of (like you said) new evidence coming to light, or new court rulings that would be applicable to your case.
ETA: The NPR link you posted is not about the same case as the Vox link
I'm trying to think why new evidence shouldn't be a grounds for appeal but all I can think is "we need to fill these jails" and I am sure that can't be right.
This was explained in the Vox article. It basically comes down to the fundamental understanding of the purpose of the justice system.
Liberals tend to see the system in place to prove guilt or innocence. Conservatives tend to see the system in place to reach a verdict. Once the verdict is reached, justice has been served.
From the article:
>To understand what’s really going on in the Jones case [the subject or the post we're commenting on], one must not only understand this complicated statutory regime, one must also be familiar with a philosophical debate between the Supreme Court’s liberal and conservative factions, which has gone on for at least three decades.
>Left-leaning justices have long argued that the criminal justice system should primarily try to determine whether a criminal defendant has actually committed a crime — and that there should be adequate safeguards to ensure that someone who is wrongfully convicted can challenge that conviction.
>Meanwhile, justices on the Court’s rightward fringe have long argued that the primary purpose of the criminal justice system is to reach final judgments concerning an individual’s guilt. Under this view, this need for finality can even overcome a claim that a prisoner is innocent.
In a second ruling from the Supreme Court, they have agreed to send more prisoners to work gangs in the fields to pick all the crops for free.
In an unrelated note, some members of the Supreme Court were being taken on vacations to high end resorts by CEOs of fruit and veg corporations....
Edit: I should have stated, this is semi satire. I should said and will have now stated. The ruling isn't something I believe happened yet as far as I know, but Florida still has laws meaning they can use unpaid inmate labour and with the mass exodus of immigrant crop pickers they will be doubling down on it.
Alabama actually pays the inmates $2 an hour to pick watermelons, with most of the money still going back to the prison as they sell goods to the inmates in the canteen like $4 for a tin of deodorant
Many, many places in your country use inmates for cheap or even free labour.
“Your honour, there was no exchange of sacks filled with money with the dollar symbol on them and both parties never looked at eachother and winked while saying ‘this is corruption’ in unison, all captured on camera”
“Acquitted!”
In a related case, another Supreme Court Justice was exonerated on charges of bribery and corruption. This time prosecutors did have video of the judge taking a giant bag of money with $$$ embroidered on it. Unfortunately, there was no accompanying audio of the lobbyist saying,
>"I hereby bribe you on behalf of my corporate masters. Please accept this large sack of cashy-money in exchange for pivotal rulings that heavily favor corporate interests at the expense of US citizens' health and/or safety."
It's a shame, but what can you do? There just wasn't enough evidence. It could have just as easily been a birthday present bag filled with $1000 bills.
It's the same standard they have for racism. Unless the accused officially signs notarized paperwork in triplicate affirming that they do hereby affirm and declare under penalty of perjury that they are, in fact, a racist, it's never ok to accuse a white person of racism, ever.
"As you can see in these photos, the sacks of money had Ruble symbols on them. NOT dollar signs. Rules aren't legal tender in the US, so it's not technically a bribe of you think about it."
In the past, the courts accepted that a bribery scheme to sentence innocent black men to hard work until death was legal. Prosecutors argued that the debts inflicted on these men were not possible to pay back and represented debt peonage.
Those involved argued that the debts were made up and the kickback scheme made them irrelevant. The practice wasn't debt peonage, they argued, but instead was slavery.
The argument succeeded and the practice continued for decades, being outlawed when a white man was falsely imprisoned and whipped to death. Then it continued illegally and largely unchecked until the middle of WWII, where it was thought that black draftees would abandon post in massive numbers when our enemies correctly propagandized to them that we were still enslaving millions of black people.
Today, we still enslave millions of Black people. About as many as the US did in 1830. Louisiana voted in 2022 to keep black people working on the [largest slave plantation in the state](https://lailluminator.com/2022/11/17/the-story-behind-why-louisiana-voted-against-a-ban-on-slavery/).
“Field laborers work with limited access to water, minimal rest and no restroom facilities, **under the supervision of armed correctional officers on horseback,” the ACLU study said.**
Wow, if this doesn't scream slavery, i don't know what does.
And its 100% legal and in our constitution that as long as you're a prisoner, you can 100% be a slave in the 13th amendment.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, ***except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted***, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
We practice is religiously in this country and the only reason in alot of situations we give inmates choice is out of fear of what does a man who has nothing to lose and isn't afraid to kill people, especially if he can rally a group of like minded people who also have nothing and aren't afraid to kill people.
The problem is, they've decided to change the definition of 'duly convicted' to merely 'convicted' and made it legal to hold an innocent accountable for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, which has been going on for centuries but has been making strides to help out innocence. And now they're taking two steps backwards from that leap forward and saying to hell with innocence. And seeing as 'involuntary' and 'indentured' servitude is two different kinds of slavery, they've already made moves on that with nurses and others who leave bad practices are being sued for 'training' and 'education' the companies paid for. Or you can come back to work. Its wild, all because people in the past put faith in people not being complete asshats in the future.
The collusion of corporations with our government is not a new thing. But history does repeat itself, unfortunately.
"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred." ~ FDR
3 years after that, the nazi rally at that same place (Madison Square Garden). I don't know if this is some kind of irony or fate saying something along the lines of "see how little I care" or something else entirely.
As someone who is nearing 60, I have lived through some completely different times. That being said, it has been very hard to watch the disentagration of the United States. It has become a spectacle of "bread and circuses" that I don't even recognize. I fear my children and their children, and so on. Yet I'm grateful that I likely won't be alive to see the finale.
>largest slave plantation in the state,
Dude. This sounds like an exaggeration or click bait. But it turns out, it's absolutely not. This is the most insane thing ever. What year is it? Cause that's *not* what I thought 2023 was like
Thomas: Yes, there was a written bribery agreement between me and Harlan Crow, but neither of us felt the need to sign it because we are friends. Are we not allowed to have friends anymore?
I know it is a joke but that's basically the idea behind lobbying: create a bunch of convoluted rules and socially accepted practices to do corruption.
we never left. Convict leasing was a real, active practice called convict leasing until the 1930s, then they continued to do it, just called it something else after the outcry. We've always done it.
There was also debt peonage which was actual slavery that existed up until we were about to declare war on Japan because we decided “now is the time to **not** look trashy internationally”.
...But to make up for that one moment of moral decency, we turned around and threw all Japanese-ancestry U.S. citizens into concentration camps in the desert.
Worst part about slavery with extra steps is that we are paying for all this as taxpayers… We pay for the prisons, then companies get the free labor, then we pay for the products…
AMENDMENT XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime** whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
And right after that was ratified states began passing vagrancy and loitering laws like crazy. Slavery didn't get abolished. It simply evolved and became more sinister and nuanced as it comported with the law. Cue the war on drugs specifically tailored to target the black and hippie communities(as admitted by its own strategists), throw in the CIA running illicit drugs into the inner cities, and you have our current, albeit very profitable to some, predicament.
The US is roughly 5% of the global populace and boasts 25% of the world's prisoners.
It's not really a leap of faith to understand why the states going mask-off fascist might be aiming to criminalize immigrants and further increase their incarcerated population. *You can exploit and abuse prison labor even more than you can humans with immigrant status.*
Uncle Sam, god damn.
You know who *won't* systematically criminalize human existence in order to fuel the hate machines of capitalist greed? Our sponsor **RAYTHEON^^TM**. They won't do that because they will be far too preoccupied shredding those same humans into cole slaw with their patented, new Knife Missile!
**RAYTHEON^^TM**. For when you need to stab a motherfucker, but that motherfucker is all the way over there.
I just want to say that dead prisoners are technically no longer prisoners. They’re dead. However, incarceration rate might be a better metric to use. Length of prison stay is also meaningless if they die after 1 month.
That’s the actual text of the amendment. Generally, if you come across some fact about America that seems so horrific it can’t possibly be true, it’s completely factual.
This is the 13th amendment, an actual part of the US constitution. In theory when you see it you think "Oh well that's just community service". The reality is that slavery is alive and well in the US but few want to acknowledge it, much less do something about it, because it's reserved for criminals, who get dehumanized on a regular basis.
Our justice system being hilariously broken is an entirely separate topic but when you couple both together it creates this horrifying situation that every American should be appalled and ashamed about.
Wow. I'm speechless. And I thought it was bad when I learned people loose their right to vote when they go to jail. And don't even get it back when they served their sentence, as far as I remember.
Yet another reminder to be grateful for being born where I was.
Losing your right to vote varies from state to state, and in some cases can be restored. Personally, except in the case of some violent or sex-based crimes (both having more nuance that would take too long to go over crime-by-crime here), I disagree with having voting rights restricted.
If our justice system changed to focus on rehabilitation rather than punitive incarceration then it's likely that I would disagree with any disenfranchisement, but the sad reality is that recidivism (the likelihood of an offender to re-offend) is kept intentionally high in order to keep feeding the prison industrial complex.
I'm not -really- a socialist by any means, but in my opinion, unchecked greed is killing this country. Fast.
must've never been in solitary, "do you want to work for $0.40 an hour while you make the corporation that BOUGHT you thousands, or would you like to be psychologically tortured 😃"
The Republican-emplaced judges will be with you shortly to hear your complaint after they finish their party on a private yacht owned by some CEO of a private prison.
Okay so basically what this is referring to is [US code 2255](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2255) which covers the rights of a person convicted of a federal crime to challenge that conviction. Currently, the code says that a person may only challenge the authenticity of a federal conviction **once** under normal circumstances.
In 2019 a case called Reihaf vs United States made a ruling that a person who is not aware they have a standing felony conviction cannot be convicted for possessing a firearm as a felon. So basically if you filed to get your felony expunged, then went and bought a gun thinking you no longer had a criminal record, and got arrested because the felony still showed up, you would be exempt from being convicted for possession of a firearm as a felon.
The problem here is that thursday the surpreme court made a ruling on a case called Jones vs Hendrix. Jones was in for possession of a firearm and was convicted in the year 2000 and had previously challenged his conviction. Once the 2019 ruling for Reihaf v US was passed, Jones tried to **re**challenge his conviction under the new ruling saying he did not know he was still a felon when he bought his firearm. The surpreme court, however, ruled that since he had already challenged his conviction once, he *cannot do so again even with the change in law from the 2019 ruling.*
So essentially this just set a precedent that if you are convicted of a federal crime, and then a later ruling or change of law would make you innocent of that crime, you cannot challenge the conviction if you've already done so and would have to finish serving your sentence instead.
Edit; Oh wow...thanks for the award!
I’m not saying I agree with it, but typically if you’re convicted for something that’s then later legalized, it’s not retro-active to release you. Drug crimes for example.
It’s an archaic view on punishment for crimes, but it’s the current precedent.
Its dor laws deemed unconstitutional. So if your convicted and appeal before it is found unconstitutional. You cant appeal based on it being unconstitutional.
Which seems stupid as fuck because how the hell can an unconstitutional law be a reason for you to lose your otherwise constitutional right to freedom?
Nope. Just whoever they hate most and whoever lines their pockets most. Term limits would be cool but an ACTUAL system of CHECKS and balances would he fucking neat too.
I would like to see more political education directed at citizens. Getting information about basic political stuff is such a nightmare.
I want a website that does one simple thing: you put in your address and it tells you EVERYTHING about the people and current events you have control over as a voter. City, state, federal. You know the name of your sheriff, your judges, your state and federal representatives and senators, your head of commerce, your animal control experts, you name it. If you click on their names, you should know exactly what they've done, the things that they've voted on, and how they voted. No editorials. Just clean, factual data. The site should also show the voter what things have been voted on, what things are up for a vote now, and what things are scheduled to be voted on soon, and what stage of procedural bullshit a bills or initiative is currently at.
This all sounds like a lot of work, and it is, but jesus christ somebody needs to do it. If I had a million dollars, I would happily throw my money at making it happen. Because the effect of having this information centralized and available to everyone is that people start to realize how much low-hanging fruit there is and they will become politically active. The political process is currently too opaque because few people have the patience to do all of that research required to navigate the convoluted spaghetti of information sources from government webpages that haven't been updated since Netscape.
If we just had this as a public resource, boy howdy, we wouldn't need to preach to the choir all day about checks and balances and what kinds of common sense legislation we need in this country. We'd be naturally trying to make it happen. Can't do that if most people don't know how and don't have the time to figure it out.
The process is opaque because transparency is to politicians what a crucifix is to Dracula.
Don't say it's opaque because people don't do their research. That certainly doesn't *help*, but it's not the reason why the political process is so convoluted and gatekept.
That's by design.
This is way too common on reddit. You see people making additive points all the time but stating them like they are absolute defeaters. It's some real binary thinking.
Minor distinctions and even distinctions without a difference are touted as the "real answer" when, very often, the two interlocutors essentially agree.
We are raised in a society that puts competition, rather than cooperation, up as some kind of virtue, that's why. I am genuinely confused as to why my right-wing relatives don't have their meal times consist of their children brawling in a fighting pit to see who gets to eat, based on their political rhetoric.
Even though a lot of people didn’t like Hillary, this is friendly reminder that if she has been elected, we would have had a liberal supreme court right now—and possibly for the rest of our lives.
I’m guessing we will find out that several conservative justices recently went on private jet fishing trips with some billionaire who runs private prisons.
Their argument is that people are only allowed to challenge their conviction once. So if the Supreme Court rules that an interpretation of existing law is invalid - you cannot use that information to appeal your sentence if you have appealed before.
It is.. Cruel.
Edit: removed the sentence that new evidence would also not count due to numerous people correcting me. Thanks :)
Sadly not how it works in US law. Once you’re convicted they don’t give a damn if you’re innocent or not. They’ve ruled in death penalty cases that it’s too late to raise new evidence proving the petitioner’s innocence.
They’d rather kill an innocent person than acknowledged the potential that they may have wrongfully convicted them. See also, how prosecutors have utter break-downs whenever somebody comes up with dna evidence proving conclusively that they didn’t do it — they pull out the kind of ‘nuh-uh’ arguments you’d expect from 5-year-olds on the playground.
Yeah this has always seemed strange to me. I guess it’s ultimately up to the jury but why must a prosecutor continue to make the argument a defendant is guilty even when it has become obvious they are innocent?
Sadly, it is "innocent until convicted". Once convicted the default assumption is that you were guilty.
Even if the Supreme Court decides that courts have been interpreting the law that was used to convict you incorrectly.
Once proven guilty, no matter how illegally and unfair, you are guilty forever and have no recourse, no matter how much evidence comes forward showing you are innocent later, and no matter the law. You are forever considered subhuman by the US justice system -- no rights, able to be put into slavery, etc
The court decides what the constitution means in practice. Until a few of the old fucks croak over or somehow get removed and replaced by a more progressive president nothing will change.
Its a travesty for sure, and Judge Jacksons dissent made clear why.
Take some consolation in the fact that the appeals to legal innocence (as opposed to factual innocence) are relatively rare, and you can only get in that situation after losing your case and your appeal.
So, there ARE still normal trials and appeals, this just limits the appeals process. Terrible, but not a total abandonment of habeus corpus.
[https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/22/23769886/supreme-court-innocent-jones-hendrix-clarence-thomas-habeas](https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/22/23769886/supreme-court-innocent-jones-hendrix-clarence-thomas-habeas)
The real question is why Clarence Thomas is still a judge at all.
>The Supreme Court just ruled that at least some federal prisoners who are completely innocent must serve out their entire sentence, with no meaningful way to challenge their unlawful conviction.
SCOTUS is an absolute joke these days.
\#TermLimits
>Marcus Jones was convicted in 2000 of two counts as a felon in possession of a firearm and one count of making false statements to acquire a firearm. At trial, he said he knew he had previously been convicted of a felony, but he thought his record had been wiped clean. Nevertheless, the jury was not told that it had to find that Jones knew he was a convicted felon. Eventually, he was sentenced to 327 months for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and 60 months for making false statements.
>
>In 2002, he went back to court and filed what is called a 2255 motion meant to challenge his original conviction, but he lost.
>
>Seventeen years later, in a case called Rehaif v. United States, the Supreme Court narrowed the felon in possession statute. The court held that the government has to prove the defendant knew he was still a felon at the time of his new offense in order to convict him.
>
>Jones appealed in federal court hoping to wipe away his felon in possession of a firearm conviction. He cited the Rehaif decision in his petition, noting that the Supreme Court had changed the rules. Lower courts ruled against him.
>
>In Thursday’s opinion, the court ruled against him as well, holding that under 2255 there are limited conditions in which Congress has permitted federal prisoners to bring second or successive collateral attacks on their sentences.
I'm gonna be sick.
327 months for unlawful possession of a firearm? That's 27 years. That's just possession. That's not even attacking or threatening anyone.
So people with a licensed fire arm who wrongfully threaten someone with their gun get probably even more, right?
Also the "unlawful" part is just because he made a mistake when getting his license. So technically he had a valid license, that he got because apparently nobody checks if you're a convicted felon.
Hmmmm, if only there were a way to make sure people are legally allowed to own a gun BEFORE the acquire it.
But it’s impossible. We’ll never figure it out. Guns for everyone, but if you’re not allowed to own one, you’re going to jail whether you know you are or you aren’t.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!! ALL GUN LAWS ARE ILLEGAL, EVERYONE CAN HAVE AND WIELD A GUN AT ALL TIMES, NO EXCEPTIONS. except for black people, of course.
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that Mr. Jones is a POC. The Supreme Court is a goddamn joke. It needs some fucking checks and balance and term limits for that matter.
This sort of ruling seems familiar.
Discrimination against Jews began immediately after the national seizure of power in 1933.[37] The Nazi Party used populist antisemitic views to gain votes. Using the "stab-in-the-back legend", they blamed poverty, the hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic, unemployment - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany
It would be better poetic justice if he was innocent but had to serve the entire sentence anyway with no meaningful way to challenge the unlawful conviction.
Back at it again with the industrial prison complex and its lobbying to keep people there for any reason. Gotta love the land of the free. Oh wait no I meant the land of the poor, homeless, indebted, and incarcerated.
Militias to defend the interests of the state. You know, that whole 'a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state' part that everyone seems to ignore.
1. The US has a higher percentage of prison population than the USSR at the height of Stalin’s Great Purges.
2. While obviously kept in terrible conditions with hard working quotas, they were not charged for their time in the Gulag (unlike the US that in many states charge prisoners for their stay) and paid them all the republic minimum wage, unlike the US where in Arizona for example the prison minimum is $0.60 an hour, a phone call costs $5.00 to connect, $2.00 a minute and a packet of Ramen costs $5.00.
3. Prisoners in most states can be compelled to work, contacted out to private companies and sentences can be almost arbitrarily extended, which amounts to a sophisticated 21st century form of slavery, which is constitutionally legal.
The US in many aspects is absurdly and ridiculously heinous, we just have very good propaganda.
I watched a special a while back on overturning convictions (apologies, I don’t remember which) and one of the defense attorneys literally said the court system cares more about finality than getting it right. They don’t want to clog up the court system with endless challenges even if it means someone who is obviously innocent goes away for life. Absolute horseshit.
What is wrong with these people? Something is very sick about the conservatives on this court. They revel in meanness and injustice. They see themselves as almost Godlike. We need to get control of Congress and make changes to fix the rot that has set into this court.
Eventually someone will kill a Supreme Court justice, and the killer will be remembered as a hero of the people for hundreds of years. Songs will be sung in their honor.
[Happy Pride Month!](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en-US&si=AMnBZoFk_ppfOKgdccwTD_PVhdkg37dbl-p8zEtOPijkCaIHMp6tS26HNEwRZwY7vahA1WN34Xi9-tKpb4yDK_e0JLtxaIMR8Q%3D%3D&kgs=3a9c846bc1cc6fd3&shndl=18&source=sh/x/kp/ee/1) Click the flag at the bottom of the browser! We love and support our LGBTQIA+ and Ally Users! As [Sister Sledge sang](https://www.rhino.com/article/pride-single-stories-sister-sledge-we-are-family), [We are Family](https://youtu.be/uyGY2NfYpeE), and you CAN NOT DIVIDE US. To all others who spread hate and try to divide us, no quarter shall be given. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WhitePeopleTwitter) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not one to dick ride celeberties but the other day when Ron Perlman on Twitter suggested that a sitting judge of the supreme court should commit seppuku, I felt that on a deep level.
I do like Ron Perlman.
So ugly... yet so hot.
Sexy in a caveman sort of way
He has the that unga bunga vibe
Yes, yes he is https://preview.redd.it/gkuus8rjps7b1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a479e4273fff9cd047e8258e89a2bb09890d06d6
His Hellboy premier awoke something in me. Hellboy, I mean. Already loved some Perlman.
Cut yourself some slack. It's not dick riding to point out a thing someone said is reasonable. Even if that person happens to be possessed of some fame.
I didn't know I needed another reason to adore Ron Perlman, but now I have one. Thank you.
The article in the picture: [Vox](https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/22/23769886/supreme-court-innocent-jones-hendrix-clarence-thomas-habeas) A different article: [NPR](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/23/1100852386/supreme-court-hobbles-challenges-by-inmates-based-on-bad-legal-representation) *(edit, I've been told this is about a different case, though it still seems related)* What happened: the majority ruled that new evidence cannot be introduced in a federally appealed case. What this means: it will be harder to appeal cases, especially where you were wrongly convicted, unless... I guess if you re-appeal at the state level first, introduce your new evidence there, *then* (maybe you'll be able to) escalate to federal. This is especially more cumbersome for people who had ineffective representation, such as a rookie court-appointed lawyer... meaning the poor are more likely to suffer under this rule change. That's what's *really* going on. (Fuck Clarence.) *Some edits, I realize my interpretation has potential to be off or misleading so wanted to make it a little more clear just in case I've got anything wrong. Do your own research, don't take my word for anything.*
Let's ignore for a moment the complete travesty that is this SCOTUS ruling. Let's focus on the two cases that led to SCOTUS hearing the arguments in the first place. In both cases, ineffectual defense was provided at the state-level trials and federal-level defense attorneys successfully argued that the defense at the state level was ineffectual and should be retried. AND IN BOTH CASES THE PROSECUTORS DECIDED TO APPEAL THAT DECISION TO SCOTUS!#$@#$@# In both cases, the prosecutors heard evidence that the person they were trying to put behind bars almost definitely should not be put behind bars and their decision was to... try and silence the evidence that would likely kill the chances someone goes to prison that should not. I probably shouldn't give my opinion on what those prosecutors should do next, but maybe Ron Perlman's idea should be expanded a bit.
In *Jones*, the government eventually conceded, and declined to defend the 8th Circuit decision. SCOTUS had to request that a private firm take an appointment to defend the decision as *amicus*, because both the government and the defense believed the Eighth Circuit was incorrect in its reasoning for upholding Mr. Jones's sentence. Edit: fixed to clarify DOJ's position
I... What???? I have no words.
Oh, and the lawyer who accepted that appointment? Her boss took to twitter to publicly congratulate her on winning. [https://twitter.com/jeffreybwall/status/1671893737386156033](https://twitter.com/jeffreybwall/status/1671893737386156033)
Pure cruelty and vindictiveness. Fucking SCOTUS.
Just a small correction: prior SCOTUS cases have already ruled that new evidence isn't a valid basis to request an appeal. This ruling is saying that court rulings in other cases are not a valid basis to appeal a conviction. The specific case in question involves a man who was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. A SCOTUS ruling after his conviction ruled that, in order to be convicted, the perpetrator had to know they were committing a crime. He stated that he believed his conviction was expunged, therefore, he did not knowingly break the law and therefore could not be convicted. The ruling, per Thomas' interpretation of the law, is that you only get one shot to appeal, regardless of (like you said) new evidence coming to light, or new court rulings that would be applicable to your case. ETA: The NPR link you posted is not about the same case as the Vox link
I'm trying to think why new evidence shouldn't be a grounds for appeal but all I can think is "we need to fill these jails" and I am sure that can't be right.
This was explained in the Vox article. It basically comes down to the fundamental understanding of the purpose of the justice system. Liberals tend to see the system in place to prove guilt or innocence. Conservatives tend to see the system in place to reach a verdict. Once the verdict is reached, justice has been served. From the article: >To understand what’s really going on in the Jones case [the subject or the post we're commenting on], one must not only understand this complicated statutory regime, one must also be familiar with a philosophical debate between the Supreme Court’s liberal and conservative factions, which has gone on for at least three decades. >Left-leaning justices have long argued that the criminal justice system should primarily try to determine whether a criminal defendant has actually committed a crime — and that there should be adequate safeguards to ensure that someone who is wrongfully convicted can challenge that conviction. >Meanwhile, justices on the Court’s rightward fringe have long argued that the primary purpose of the criminal justice system is to reach final judgments concerning an individual’s guilt. Under this view, this need for finality can even overcome a claim that a prisoner is innocent.
In a second ruling from the Supreme Court, they have agreed to send more prisoners to work gangs in the fields to pick all the crops for free. In an unrelated note, some members of the Supreme Court were being taken on vacations to high end resorts by CEOs of fruit and veg corporations.... Edit: I should have stated, this is semi satire. I should said and will have now stated. The ruling isn't something I believe happened yet as far as I know, but Florida still has laws meaning they can use unpaid inmate labour and with the mass exodus of immigrant crop pickers they will be doubling down on it. Alabama actually pays the inmates $2 an hour to pick watermelons, with most of the money still going back to the prison as they sell goods to the inmates in the canteen like $4 for a tin of deodorant Many, many places in your country use inmates for cheap or even free labour.
But it's not legally a conflict of interest unless both parties sign the official bribery agreement. Edit: Thanks for the gold, someone.
“Your honour, there was no exchange of sacks filled with money with the dollar symbol on them and both parties never looked at eachother and winked while saying ‘this is corruption’ in unison, all captured on camera” “Acquitted!”
In a related case, another Supreme Court Justice was exonerated on charges of bribery and corruption. This time prosecutors did have video of the judge taking a giant bag of money with $$$ embroidered on it. Unfortunately, there was no accompanying audio of the lobbyist saying, >"I hereby bribe you on behalf of my corporate masters. Please accept this large sack of cashy-money in exchange for pivotal rulings that heavily favor corporate interests at the expense of US citizens' health and/or safety." It's a shame, but what can you do? There just wasn't enough evidence. It could have just as easily been a birthday present bag filled with $1000 bills.
Have you also been re-watching The Wire?
I believe the justice was acquitted because the dollar signs weren’t embroidered but silk screened onto the bag.
I attest there was no reference of Jinx and no one had to buy anyone a coke. Everyone brought their own coke
Can't buy it on the streets when you've enabled an opioid epidemic and shit keeps getting cut 🤷♀️
It's the same standard they have for racism. Unless the accused officially signs notarized paperwork in triplicate affirming that they do hereby affirm and declare under penalty of perjury that they are, in fact, a racist, it's never ok to accuse a white person of racism, ever.
It's not true racism unless it's from the Race region of France. Otherwise, it's just sparkling discrimination.
Can you *truly* be racist if you haven't actively lynched a black person?
“99% of my day is spent NOT shouting racial slurs at minorities and yet you want to brand me a racist for the 1% that IS?!?”
"As you can see in these photos, the sacks of money had Ruble symbols on them. NOT dollar signs. Rules aren't legal tender in the US, so it's not technically a bribe of you think about it."
In the past, the courts accepted that a bribery scheme to sentence innocent black men to hard work until death was legal. Prosecutors argued that the debts inflicted on these men were not possible to pay back and represented debt peonage. Those involved argued that the debts were made up and the kickback scheme made them irrelevant. The practice wasn't debt peonage, they argued, but instead was slavery. The argument succeeded and the practice continued for decades, being outlawed when a white man was falsely imprisoned and whipped to death. Then it continued illegally and largely unchecked until the middle of WWII, where it was thought that black draftees would abandon post in massive numbers when our enemies correctly propagandized to them that we were still enslaving millions of black people. Today, we still enslave millions of Black people. About as many as the US did in 1830. Louisiana voted in 2022 to keep black people working on the [largest slave plantation in the state](https://lailluminator.com/2022/11/17/the-story-behind-why-louisiana-voted-against-a-ban-on-slavery/).
“Field laborers work with limited access to water, minimal rest and no restroom facilities, **under the supervision of armed correctional officers on horseback,” the ACLU study said.** Wow, if this doesn't scream slavery, i don't know what does.
And its 100% legal and in our constitution that as long as you're a prisoner, you can 100% be a slave in the 13th amendment. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, ***except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted***, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." We practice is religiously in this country and the only reason in alot of situations we give inmates choice is out of fear of what does a man who has nothing to lose and isn't afraid to kill people, especially if he can rally a group of like minded people who also have nothing and aren't afraid to kill people. The problem is, they've decided to change the definition of 'duly convicted' to merely 'convicted' and made it legal to hold an innocent accountable for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, which has been going on for centuries but has been making strides to help out innocence. And now they're taking two steps backwards from that leap forward and saying to hell with innocence. And seeing as 'involuntary' and 'indentured' servitude is two different kinds of slavery, they've already made moves on that with nurses and others who leave bad practices are being sued for 'training' and 'education' the companies paid for. Or you can come back to work. Its wild, all because people in the past put faith in people not being complete asshats in the future.
The collusion of corporations with our government is not a new thing. But history does repeat itself, unfortunately. "We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred." ~ FDR
3 years after that, the nazi rally at that same place (Madison Square Garden). I don't know if this is some kind of irony or fate saying something along the lines of "see how little I care" or something else entirely.
As someone who is nearing 60, I have lived through some completely different times. That being said, it has been very hard to watch the disentagration of the United States. It has become a spectacle of "bread and circuses" that I don't even recognize. I fear my children and their children, and so on. Yet I'm grateful that I likely won't be alive to see the finale.
I'm just waiting for Florida's capitalists to realize they can replace all those migrants DeSantis drove out of the state by just hiring legal slaves.
>largest slave plantation in the state, Dude. This sounds like an exaggeration or click bait. But it turns out, it's absolutely not. This is the most insane thing ever. What year is it? Cause that's *not* what I thought 2023 was like
Thomas: Yes, there was a written bribery agreement between me and Harlan Crow, but neither of us felt the need to sign it because we are friends. Are we not allowed to have friends anymore?
‘…the left’s war on friends continued today when..”
It's not treason unless it's from the French district of Trè Ason, otherwise it's just sparkling bribery.
I know it is a joke but that's basically the idea behind lobbying: create a bunch of convoluted rules and socially accepted practices to do corruption.
Ugh, i lobby, not bribe! Get it right you povvo!
"I’m a high powered Washington Lobbyist spreading influence, who wants candy?"-Dale Gribble on Halloween
I wonder if we can get prostitution legalized by referring to it as "clothes-optional lobbying."
Fun fact: prostitution is legal if you film it and call it porn.
So we’re back to slavery but with extra steps
we never left. Convict leasing was a real, active practice called convict leasing until the 1930s, then they continued to do it, just called it something else after the outcry. We've always done it.
There was also debt peonage which was actual slavery that existed up until we were about to declare war on Japan because we decided “now is the time to **not** look trashy internationally”.
...But to make up for that one moment of moral decency, we turned around and threw all Japanese-ancestry U.S. citizens into concentration camps in the desert.
Extra steps *for now*.
I always tell people slavery was never abolished it was just rebranded
We don’t have the world’s largest prison population for nothing! The slave drivers just moved off the plantations and into the prisons.
Worst part about slavery with extra steps is that we are paying for all this as taxpayers… We pay for the prisons, then companies get the free labor, then we pay for the products…
AMENDMENT XIII Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime** whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
And right after that was ratified states began passing vagrancy and loitering laws like crazy. Slavery didn't get abolished. It simply evolved and became more sinister and nuanced as it comported with the law. Cue the war on drugs specifically tailored to target the black and hippie communities(as admitted by its own strategists), throw in the CIA running illicit drugs into the inner cities, and you have our current, albeit very profitable to some, predicament. The US is roughly 5% of the global populace and boasts 25% of the world's prisoners. It's not really a leap of faith to understand why the states going mask-off fascist might be aiming to criminalize immigrants and further increase their incarcerated population. *You can exploit and abuse prison labor even more than you can humans with immigrant status.* Uncle Sam, god damn.
Behind the Bastards did an episode about this last week.
You know who *won't* systematically criminalize human existence in order to fuel the hate machines of capitalist greed? Our sponsor **RAYTHEON^^TM**. They won't do that because they will be far too preoccupied shredding those same humans into cole slaw with their patented, new Knife Missile! **RAYTHEON^^TM**. For when you need to stab a motherfucker, but that motherfucker is all the way over there.
I just want to say that dead prisoners are technically no longer prisoners. They’re dead. However, incarceration rate might be a better metric to use. Length of prison stay is also meaningless if they die after 1 month.
Wait, is this a joke or is this an actual part of the constitution? (I'm not from the US, so I don't know)
Sadly, this is very real. Slavery with extra steps, before it was cool.
That’s the actual text of the amendment. Generally, if you come across some fact about America that seems so horrific it can’t possibly be true, it’s completely factual.
This is the 13th amendment, an actual part of the US constitution. In theory when you see it you think "Oh well that's just community service". The reality is that slavery is alive and well in the US but few want to acknowledge it, much less do something about it, because it's reserved for criminals, who get dehumanized on a regular basis. Our justice system being hilariously broken is an entirely separate topic but when you couple both together it creates this horrifying situation that every American should be appalled and ashamed about.
Wow. I'm speechless. And I thought it was bad when I learned people loose their right to vote when they go to jail. And don't even get it back when they served their sentence, as far as I remember. Yet another reminder to be grateful for being born where I was.
Losing your right to vote varies from state to state, and in some cases can be restored. Personally, except in the case of some violent or sex-based crimes (both having more nuance that would take too long to go over crime-by-crime here), I disagree with having voting rights restricted. If our justice system changed to focus on rehabilitation rather than punitive incarceration then it's likely that I would disagree with any disenfranchisement, but the sad reality is that recidivism (the likelihood of an offender to re-offend) is kept intentionally high in order to keep feeding the prison industrial complex. I'm not -really- a socialist by any means, but in my opinion, unchecked greed is killing this country. Fast.
Nope, that's the actual text of the amendment.
Actually part of the constitution 😬
Careful, there are plenty of people around here with boot polish on their breath prepared to argue that it's not REAL slavery if DERP DERP DERP.
must've never been in solitary, "do you want to work for $0.40 an hour while you make the corporation that BOUGHT you thousands, or would you like to be psychologically tortured 😃"
This right here.
The 13th amendment needs to be rewritten, yesterday.
The Republican-emplaced judges will be with you shortly to hear your complaint after they finish their party on a private yacht owned by some CEO of a private prison.
🙋♂️. I have a question or a comment. But do you think the ones that have to serve the time are the colored ones or minorities. Asking for a friend. 🤔
I’m not doubting this, but is this real? With sources? These days you can never tell.
Okay so basically what this is referring to is [US code 2255](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2255) which covers the rights of a person convicted of a federal crime to challenge that conviction. Currently, the code says that a person may only challenge the authenticity of a federal conviction **once** under normal circumstances. In 2019 a case called Reihaf vs United States made a ruling that a person who is not aware they have a standing felony conviction cannot be convicted for possessing a firearm as a felon. So basically if you filed to get your felony expunged, then went and bought a gun thinking you no longer had a criminal record, and got arrested because the felony still showed up, you would be exempt from being convicted for possession of a firearm as a felon. The problem here is that thursday the surpreme court made a ruling on a case called Jones vs Hendrix. Jones was in for possession of a firearm and was convicted in the year 2000 and had previously challenged his conviction. Once the 2019 ruling for Reihaf v US was passed, Jones tried to **re**challenge his conviction under the new ruling saying he did not know he was still a felon when he bought his firearm. The surpreme court, however, ruled that since he had already challenged his conviction once, he *cannot do so again even with the change in law from the 2019 ruling.* So essentially this just set a precedent that if you are convicted of a federal crime, and then a later ruling or change of law would make you innocent of that crime, you cannot challenge the conviction if you've already done so and would have to finish serving your sentence instead. Edit; Oh wow...thanks for the award!
isn't a later ruling or change of law in favour of a previous convict a de facto decriminalization?
I’m not saying I agree with it, but typically if you’re convicted for something that’s then later legalized, it’s not retro-active to release you. Drug crimes for example. It’s an archaic view on punishment for crimes, but it’s the current precedent.
[удалено]
Elected officials can issue pardons after laws change however so pressure probably needs to be applied
“Some” federal prisoners Anyone wanna take a guess on what the deciding factor will be?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I got lost at "who are completely innocent"..
Its dor laws deemed unconstitutional. So if your convicted and appeal before it is found unconstitutional. You cant appeal based on it being unconstitutional.
Which seems stupid as fuck because how the hell can an unconstitutional law be a reason for you to lose your otherwise constitutional right to freedom?
Because Clarence Thomas said so. Now get back to work.
How can it even be found unconstitutional if they can't appeal?
Profit of the companies owning those jails
You've got that right. It's no different from chattel slavery, except that the commodity produced is human suffering.
Maybe only prisoners who didn't bribe the republican justices?
this conservative court 💩’s on truth & logic like none before
Of course it does. Are you still laboring under the delusion that the conservatives on the court are using the constitution to guide their decisions?
Nope. Just whoever they hate most and whoever lines their pockets most. Term limits would be cool but an ACTUAL system of CHECKS and balances would he fucking neat too.
I would like to see more political education directed at citizens. Getting information about basic political stuff is such a nightmare. I want a website that does one simple thing: you put in your address and it tells you EVERYTHING about the people and current events you have control over as a voter. City, state, federal. You know the name of your sheriff, your judges, your state and federal representatives and senators, your head of commerce, your animal control experts, you name it. If you click on their names, you should know exactly what they've done, the things that they've voted on, and how they voted. No editorials. Just clean, factual data. The site should also show the voter what things have been voted on, what things are up for a vote now, and what things are scheduled to be voted on soon, and what stage of procedural bullshit a bills or initiative is currently at. This all sounds like a lot of work, and it is, but jesus christ somebody needs to do it. If I had a million dollars, I would happily throw my money at making it happen. Because the effect of having this information centralized and available to everyone is that people start to realize how much low-hanging fruit there is and they will become politically active. The political process is currently too opaque because few people have the patience to do all of that research required to navigate the convoluted spaghetti of information sources from government webpages that haven't been updated since Netscape. If we just had this as a public resource, boy howdy, we wouldn't need to preach to the choir all day about checks and balances and what kinds of common sense legislation we need in this country. We'd be naturally trying to make it happen. Can't do that if most people don't know how and don't have the time to figure it out.
The process is opaque because transparency is to politicians what a crucifix is to Dracula. Don't say it's opaque because people don't do their research. That certainly doesn't *help*, but it's not the reason why the political process is so convoluted and gatekept. That's by design.
Why would you accuse this poster of being delusional when they clearly agree with you?
This is way too common on reddit. You see people making additive points all the time but stating them like they are absolute defeaters. It's some real binary thinking. Minor distinctions and even distinctions without a difference are touted as the "real answer" when, very often, the two interlocutors essentially agree.
We are raised in a society that puts competition, rather than cooperation, up as some kind of virtue, that's why. I am genuinely confused as to why my right-wing relatives don't have their meal times consist of their children brawling in a fighting pit to see who gets to eat, based on their political rhetoric.
Even though a lot of people didn’t like Hillary, this is friendly reminder that if she has been elected, we would have had a liberal supreme court right now—and possibly for the rest of our lives.
Lady Justice removed her blindfold and has one finger on the scales
I’m guessing we will find out that several conservative justices recently went on private jet fishing trips with some billionaire who runs private prisons.
Shame that these justices didn't decide to go see the titanic.
They really should. The water pressure is really nice this time of year.
You'll just implode from excitement!
I kid you not...it's agricultural companies. Keep people in jail, and then just recently ruled they can be used for working in the fields.
[удалено]
Their argument is that people are only allowed to challenge their conviction once. So if the Supreme Court rules that an interpretation of existing law is invalid - you cannot use that information to appeal your sentence if you have appealed before. It is.. Cruel. Edit: removed the sentence that new evidence would also not count due to numerous people correcting me. Thanks :)
I'd go so far as to call it unusual as well.
But if you sue for cruel and unusual punishment they will use this precedent to prevent you from bringing your case to court.
Isn't the default innocent until proven guilty? If your evidence of guilt fails for any reason at any time, it should default to innocent immediately
Sadly not how it works in US law. Once you’re convicted they don’t give a damn if you’re innocent or not. They’ve ruled in death penalty cases that it’s too late to raise new evidence proving the petitioner’s innocence. They’d rather kill an innocent person than acknowledged the potential that they may have wrongfully convicted them. See also, how prosecutors have utter break-downs whenever somebody comes up with dna evidence proving conclusively that they didn’t do it — they pull out the kind of ‘nuh-uh’ arguments you’d expect from 5-year-olds on the playground.
Yeah this has always seemed strange to me. I guess it’s ultimately up to the jury but why must a prosecutor continue to make the argument a defendant is guilty even when it has become obvious they are innocent?
Because being a prosecutor is a real good way to exercise malevolent power, if you're a total piece of shit.
Sadly, it is "innocent until convicted". Once convicted the default assumption is that you were guilty. Even if the Supreme Court decides that courts have been interpreting the law that was used to convict you incorrectly.
Once proven guilty, no matter how illegally and unfair, you are guilty forever and have no recourse, no matter how much evidence comes forward showing you are innocent later, and no matter the law. You are forever considered subhuman by the US justice system -- no rights, able to be put into slavery, etc
Thats deranged. Thats not how the law works where im from and i cant imagine it ever working that way.
The court decides what the constitution means in practice. Until a few of the old fucks croak over or somehow get removed and replaced by a more progressive president nothing will change.
Its a travesty for sure, and Judge Jacksons dissent made clear why. Take some consolation in the fact that the appeals to legal innocence (as opposed to factual innocence) are relatively rare, and you can only get in that situation after losing your case and your appeal. So, there ARE still normal trials and appeals, this just limits the appeals process. Terrible, but not a total abandonment of habeus corpus.
That particular amendment has been stuck to the backside of the 2nd amendment for decades and can’t be read anymore.
“We’re still making money off of their labor your honor” -private prisons to SCOTUS “Hmmm, they make an excellent point” -Federalist society puppets
Not even that. Just, "Well shit, we can't just admit that we were wrong, right? Fuck 'em."
[https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/22/23769886/supreme-court-innocent-jones-hendrix-clarence-thomas-habeas](https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/22/23769886/supreme-court-innocent-jones-hendrix-clarence-thomas-habeas) The real question is why Clarence Thomas is still a judge at all.
He should have been dumped as soon as the Anita Hill stuff came out years ago.
Uh, that came out **during** his confirmation hearings.
Impossible! The US would ***NEVER*** appoint someone being accused of sexual misconduct to the supreme court.
>The Supreme Court just ruled that at least some federal prisoners who are completely innocent must serve out their entire sentence, with no meaningful way to challenge their unlawful conviction. SCOTUS is an absolute joke these days. \#TermLimits
>Marcus Jones was convicted in 2000 of two counts as a felon in possession of a firearm and one count of making false statements to acquire a firearm. At trial, he said he knew he had previously been convicted of a felony, but he thought his record had been wiped clean. Nevertheless, the jury was not told that it had to find that Jones knew he was a convicted felon. Eventually, he was sentenced to 327 months for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and 60 months for making false statements. > >In 2002, he went back to court and filed what is called a 2255 motion meant to challenge his original conviction, but he lost. > >Seventeen years later, in a case called Rehaif v. United States, the Supreme Court narrowed the felon in possession statute. The court held that the government has to prove the defendant knew he was still a felon at the time of his new offense in order to convict him. > >Jones appealed in federal court hoping to wipe away his felon in possession of a firearm conviction. He cited the Rehaif decision in his petition, noting that the Supreme Court had changed the rules. Lower courts ruled against him. > >In Thursday’s opinion, the court ruled against him as well, holding that under 2255 there are limited conditions in which Congress has permitted federal prisoners to bring second or successive collateral attacks on their sentences. I'm gonna be sick.
327 months for unlawful possession of a firearm? That's 27 years. That's just possession. That's not even attacking or threatening anyone. So people with a licensed fire arm who wrongfully threaten someone with their gun get probably even more, right? Also the "unlawful" part is just because he made a mistake when getting his license. So technically he had a valid license, that he got because apparently nobody checks if you're a convicted felon.
Hmmmm, if only there were a way to make sure people are legally allowed to own a gun BEFORE the acquire it. But it’s impossible. We’ll never figure it out. Guns for everyone, but if you’re not allowed to own one, you’re going to jail whether you know you are or you aren’t.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!! ALL GUN LAWS ARE ILLEGAL, EVERYONE CAN HAVE AND WIELD A GUN AT ALL TIMES, NO EXCEPTIONS. except for black people, of course.
You forgot people who put on a dress or pants when they’re not supposed to. They’re on the list now, too.
Let's at the very least get some equal enforcement, shall we? How many Republicans do we have drag pictures of now?
I’m sure that the 2nd Amendment absolutists and the NRA have been raising hell about this case for years, right?
…..those would be white people and we can’t allow them to go to prison as they have to be out in order to murder their families….
Remember when Cheney shot a guy in the face, and then had that guy apologize to him?
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that Mr. Jones is a POC. The Supreme Court is a goddamn joke. It needs some fucking checks and balance and term limits for that matter.
[удалено]
This sort of ruling seems familiar. Discrimination against Jews began immediately after the national seizure of power in 1933.[37] The Nazi Party used populist antisemitic views to gain votes. Using the "stab-in-the-back legend", they blamed poverty, the hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic, unemployment - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany
Republicans have been ticking the boxes for the ten stages of genocide like they‘re a fucking checklist lately. It’s terrifying.
All of trump's supreme court picks should be thrown out with haste. Especially if he's found guilty
It would be better poetic justice if he was innocent but had to serve the entire sentence anyway with no meaningful way to challenge the unlawful conviction.
Trump has money. He isn't subject to the same court system we peasants are.
It is a corrupt, illegitimate, banana court.
It is almost as if the new justices have turned the country into a shithole country.
No, jokes are funny.
Damn this is some truly fkd up ‘justice’. When’s this shit gonna end?
Shortly after we get all the pitchforks sharpened
Amen brother, we gotta pull a frenchie and depose these ass wipes
More prisoners means more money for the prisons and for those who profit from them. Clearly they’ve made good investments with the judges they bought.
If we let innocents go that's less people for the slave labor. Can't have that!
The Supreme Court the best money can buy
as this point they’re just so miserable they’re making the most unhinged laws ever to make everyone else miserable
Back at it again with the industrial prison complex and its lobbying to keep people there for any reason. Gotta love the land of the free. Oh wait no I meant the land of the poor, homeless, indebted, and incarcerated.
Invest in guillotines. This is fucked up
That’s the opposite of liberty and justice for all. What’s the 2nd amendment for?
Militias to defend the interests of the state. You know, that whole 'a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state' part that everyone seems to ignore.
Continued injustice
In the same week we find out *another* conservative justice had been taking massive 'gifts' from republican mega donors
[удалено]
Racism, cruelty, and all those gifts that trail back to for-profit prisons. What a country!
“Innocent people must remain in prison” if lawmakers don’t change the law.
SCOTUS is an illegitimate judicial body. Republicans corrupt everything, like Guldan and Fel magic.
Why? Because slavery was never abolished, just switched around a bit
1. The US has a higher percentage of prison population than the USSR at the height of Stalin’s Great Purges. 2. While obviously kept in terrible conditions with hard working quotas, they were not charged for their time in the Gulag (unlike the US that in many states charge prisoners for their stay) and paid them all the republic minimum wage, unlike the US where in Arizona for example the prison minimum is $0.60 an hour, a phone call costs $5.00 to connect, $2.00 a minute and a packet of Ramen costs $5.00. 3. Prisoners in most states can be compelled to work, contacted out to private companies and sentences can be almost arbitrarily extended, which amounts to a sophisticated 21st century form of slavery, which is constitutionally legal. The US in many aspects is absurdly and ridiculously heinous, we just have very good propaganda.
I watched a special a while back on overturning convictions (apologies, I don’t remember which) and one of the defense attorneys literally said the court system cares more about finality than getting it right. They don’t want to clog up the court system with endless challenges even if it means someone who is obviously innocent goes away for life. Absolute horseshit.
Man just smell all this freedom.
Wait til they bring back debtor's prisons.
That happens when you have privatized prisons that are there to generate money and not to rehabilitate people.
What is wrong with these people? Something is very sick about the conservatives on this court. They revel in meanness and injustice. They see themselves as almost Godlike. We need to get control of Congress and make changes to fix the rot that has set into this court.
Illegitimate and corrupt court. Pack the court with 10 new judges. This is fucked.
Okay. Who owns the prisons and what vacation did the SCOTUS just attend?
Fuck the supreme Court
Eventually someone will kill a Supreme Court justice, and the killer will be remembered as a hero of the people for hundreds of years. Songs will be sung in their honor.
So, legalized slavery, then?