..who seem to think that he personally will strip the sin out of the law for them.
Gamble isn't even on the calendar yet, and probably won't be heard before 1/2019. The US Government's response is due on 10/25, and the response to them by Gamble is expected a month after that. They don't schedule arguments in the second half of December. (BTW the US Government is actually defending the status quo. They argued against SCOTUS taking the case to begin with.)
Most civil libertarians think that double jeopardy is a bad thing. (And many states forbid it in their own constitutions.) In 2016, Ruth Bader Ginsburg pretty much called for the elimination of the dual sovereignty exception to the double jeopardy clause, in a separate opinion in another case (and was joined by Clarence Thomas in the opinion).
I join in full the Court’s opinion, which cogently applies long prevailing doctrine. I write only to flag a larger question that bears fresh examination in an appropriate case. The double jeopardy proscription is intended to shield individuals from the harassment of multiple prosecutions for the same misconduct.
Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 187 (1957). Current “separate sovereigns” doctrine hardly serves that objective. ... Within that whole is it not “an affront to human dignity,”
Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187, 203 (1959) (Black, J., dissenting), “inconsistent with the spirit of [our] Bill of Rights,” Developments in the Law—Criminal Conspiracy, 72 Harv. L. Rev. 920, 968 (1959), to try or punish a person twice for the same offense? The matter warrants attention in a future case in which a defendant faces successive prosecutions by parts of the whole USA.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-108_k4mp.pdf (pg 22)
The ACLU has filed an amicus brief in the Gamble case, calling for its elimination. I would be shocked if the 4 liberal judges vote to keep it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
