barkingspiders

joined 2 years ago
[–] barkingspiders 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I don't think there's anything shorter or more elegant than this really. When you're right you're right.

[–] barkingspiders 6 points 2 years ago

I've been here for months and never understood what was going on there, thanks for answering!

[–] barkingspiders 12 points 2 years ago

That's kind of my take. Too many people want to paint SCOTUS as a single (and usually corrupt) entity but there's a much wider diversity of opinions expressed across SCOTUS which often gets left out when we talk about their rulings. A complete lack of dissent from all justices signals that there is indeed some rationale here beyond partisan politics. Given the importance of the matter and the many many consequences of any given ruling on it, it makes sense to me that they would hold off and let the appellate courts chew on it for a while. By holding off they are allowing a wider array of judge's opinions to be heard which can only enrich the arguments they'll hear when and if they do ultimately take the case.

[–] barkingspiders 3 points 2 years ago

Beautiful quote, thanks for sharing today!

[–] barkingspiders 2 points 2 years ago

Oh good, I was worried you were bored!

[–] barkingspiders 10 points 2 years ago

I can't lie, I have really been looking forward to this feature. I have too many steam friends and too much shaaaaaaaaame.

[–] barkingspiders 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (10 children)

I really appreciate this exchange. Someone casually makes a claim, someone else requests sources, and the original poster took the time to respond and detail where they heard the info. Great job on all of you. Now I'll try to add to the conversation.

IANAL but it looks like it's a defendant's right. It's origins seem to be about protecting a defendant from a never-ending or egregiously drawn out prosecution. I think it's fair to say that it gives both sides tools in this case. It seems pretty obvious to me that the defendant here (orange man) wants to delay and would maybe even decline his right to a speedy trial if offered the choice. Meanwhile the prosecution can press the judges to keep things moving by pointing out that they (the prosecutors and judges) are legally obligated to give the defendant a speedy trial.

and sources:
https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/right-to-a-speedy-trial/
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt6-2-1/ALDE_00012979/
https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/digest/VB4.htm

[–] barkingspiders 1 points 2 years ago

Both but I'm not happy about it ☹️

[–] barkingspiders 10 points 2 years ago

This was a work of ducking art, mad respect

[–] barkingspiders 1 points 2 years ago

bumping for visibility, I'd like to know too

view more: ‹ prev next ›