Every once in a while SCOTUS surprises you

[DemocratSinceBirth]

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that jury verdicts in trials for serious crimes must be unanimous.

Two states, Louisiana and Oregon, allowed defendants to be convicted on divided votes. Monday's decision tossed out the conviction and life sentence of a Louisiana man, Evangelisto Ramos, who was found guilty of murder by a 10-2 jury vote. He will likely get a new trial.

Louisiana recently changed its law to require unanimous verdicts, but that change did not apply to some previous convictions, such as the Ramos case. Nonunanimous verdicts were still permitted under Oregon law, however. That state's attorney general told the court that striking down the practice could invalidate hundreds of convictions. But on Monday, she called the decision good news

...


Three members of the court dissented from Monday's decision — conservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito and liberal Elena Kagan. They said the 1972 decision should be upheld because Oregon and Louisiana have relied on it to conduct their criminal trials.

The ruling "imposes a potentially crushing burden on the courts and criminal justice systems of those states," Alito wrote for the dissenters

Kudos to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. What could Elena Kegan and John Roberts have been thinking?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. The case really had more to do with stare decisis - the principle that

courts should follow their own precedents. The majority said the 1972 case upholding the constitutionality of state laws allowing for a less than unanimous jury was so wrong that it was appropriate to overturn it. The minority thought that the fact that those two states had relied on the case for 40 years and changing the rules would be too disruptive meant it shouldn't be overturned.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. "An unjust law is no law at all."

The minority was wrong. We give the state the right to deprive a man or woman of their freedom. They better get it right.

[DenverJared]

2. Don't trust Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Thomas

I think this is to soften the blow when they fail to uphold precedent in Roe v Wade. They can say, "see? we ruled against precedent before - no big deal."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. They can do it if they have the political will. They don't need a pretext.