Looks like he raised double jeopardy claims based upon the State Attorney's original dismissal of his criminal case. Because of ethical issues, a special prosecutor was appointed who filed new charges, and he was convicted of five out of six of these. Smollett's attorney's unsuccessfully filed various motions prior to trial (double-jeopardy, breach of contract, and lack of authority for a special prosecutor), but these order(s) were not appealed prior to trial.
The prosecutor argued three points:
1. The case was dismissed nolle prosequi and double jeopardy does not attach to a mere decision not to prosecute before jeopardy attaches.
2. Smollett claims that his forfeiture of the bond constituted jeopardy. But the prosecutor claims that was an entirely voluntary act, not ordered by the court and there were no findings of guilt or innocent.
3. Also, in appointing a special prosecutor, the judge found that all of the previous filings were void because there was no duly appointed State's Attorney. (I believe this has to do with the State's Attorney recusing herself, but not actually recusing herself)
ww4: Smollett's sentence has been stayed pending disposition of his appeal by a 2-1 Appellate Court decision. His 150 day sentence would likely have meant 75 days in jail with good behavior. The main finding is here:
"FINDING that the defendant has been convicted on non-violent offenses and that this Court will be unable to dispose of the instant appeal before the defendant would have served his entire sentence of incarceration . . ."
WW 2: I don't recall which law firm(s) I read about, but I believe more than one in the UK have drawn from representing Russian government/businesses because of a consumer boycott led by a former ambassador to Russia who is circulating lists. I don't recall any discussion of Jewish manuscripts, just that clients have informed the firms they are leaving because of their representation of other clients.
I have no prediction, but I think it would be pretty easy for SCOTUS to distinguish a case in which voters acted as a legislative body and one in which a court is using judicial power to overrule legislation. The proper role for judicial review seems like it raises a lot of different thorny issues.
In my experience with club soccer, the dynamics are a bit different. A girl playing on a boy's team has usually been borrowed from a girl's team. She is playing both. Usually though it's a sign of a thin club because otherwise they would be borrowing a younger boy.
Good takes. I would simply add as a point of emphasis that the certification of this class posed the most potential harm to those with the strongest, largest discrimination claims. And I didn't see any reason denial of the class would preclude individual race discrimination claims.
My initial observation was that since her opinion was not appealed, its hard to believe it was outside of judicial norms. If the decision was that bad, there is a process (though not often effective for smaller cases).
But Clemon's letter complains that she entered an order denying class certification, and waited 54 days to issue her full opinion, which "knowingly" frustrated the appeal rights of plaintiffs. This seems to raise the stakes a lot because Clemons is accusing Jackson of abuse of judicial process to shield her decision from review. Alternatively, the underlying assumption to this complaint is that plaintiffs' attorneys blew an appeal deadline, committing malpractice.
I wouldn't assume malice from judges for delays, and to the extent Clemons is complaining that counsel was lulled into waiting for the full opinion, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
I've been watching some late 60s Ukrainian movies for some reason. My favorite has been Viy (1967), which apparently was the only Soviet era horror movie. Based upon a Ukrainian folk tale from Gogol; Viy is not very scary, and often pretty funny.
Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors (1965) is Ukraine's biggest international hit. It is a tale of lost love in the Carpathian mountains, whose colorful, dreamy images and depictions of village life among the Hutsul people are the main draws. The director found it difficult to get subsequent projects approved, and would eventually serve almost five years in a prison work camp. I've seen various accusations, one of which is that the Armenian was viewed as a Ukrainian nationalist for not dubbing this movie in Russian.
The cinematographer for Shadows directed The Eve of Ivan Kupalo (1968), which may or may not have been banned. It is also based upon a Gogol tale of a Faustian bargain made in a Cossack village in Central Ukraine. Its short seventy minutes is visual onslaught of surreal images. I was riveted, but mostly uncomprehending.
These movies are all at odds with the demands of Soviet realism, but it appears that for a brief moment the explanation that these are "folk" stories, some by an officially respected writer (Stalin's favorite) could get the film approved.
The situation here has changed a lot in the last two weeks. A trial judge ruled that the school mandates were illegal and enjoined the state from enforcing them. The next day half of the teachers at my son's high school stopped wearing masks. They are all vaccinated or obtained an exception.
The Governor criticized the judge's poor legal reasoning (she was appointed by the state supreme court to hear all of the pandemic cases against the state) and pursued an appeal. Several days later, the legislature vetoed renewal of the school policy, and then yesterday the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as moot because the policy no longer exists.
Illinois has had a durational residency requirement since the 1818 Constitution, and does not appear to have changed much in the several subsequent constitutions. It does appear though that when the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rahm Emanual's eligibility to run for mayor of Chicago that the requirement is now merely a domicile requirement like Oregon's. The law requires the candidate to be eligible to vote (which is a domicile requirement), plus "reside in" Chicago for one year. The second part does not appear to serve any function any more.
Technically, that raises the issue of limits on Congress delegating "legislative power" to an executive agency. And Congress makes that delegation subject to judicial review, so there are checks against Presidential overreach built into law.
I am not certain that the President's power stems from the election process. The U.S. has a written Constitution which gives the President sole "executive power," which is not defined. I think in other Constitutional systems, powers are codified or built upon a long historical tradition.
The U.S. has a strong judiciary which has interpreted the scope of the executive Power, often on separation of powers principles, i.e. that the power is structurally sound given legislative checks. Some executive Power escapes judicial review because of limitations of the judiciary (case and controversy requirement or mootness for example) Overall, my concern would be that systematically combining separate powers with this historical background would simply mean unchecked power.
OTOH, the President would not appear to have any power to enforce party discipline by calling elections or taking the whip from rebel members. That could lead to its own kind of paralysis.
2. Congressional districts are not in the Constitution. The first Congress used multi-member districts, but most states moved to single-member districts and then Congress passed a statute in 1842 requiring multi-member districts. That suggests to me something that became popular in the various states was subsequently made obligatory for all, a common dynamic and I wonder how easy it would be to reverse. But the first step I think would be repeal the statute.
Yeah, nothing has changed for me other than I've moved from a Republican sink to a Democrat spread, which probably means that even though the odds will not favor the Republicans, there will likely be more competition on the ballot.
As Will Rogers noted, a politician is just like a pickpocket; it’s almost impossible to get one to reform. The only thing that's really changed is that the mainstream media started cheering for pickpockets.
One simple step would be to eliminate the federal law requiring single member Congressional districts in every state. A more controversial step would be to amend the law to require at-large elections.
From a Democrat perspective, their coalition is geographically concentrated, putting them at a disadvantage in any territorial districting. Probably reduces black representation to the extent it benefits from majority-minority districts, so this has internal resistance. Not sure how Republicans would see any benefit from this, but probably could be persuaded that its the state's right to choose. Some experiments might increase their popularity. Independents would like the greater choice.
Illinois has a coin flip if the political branches cannot reach an agreement (usually when the governor is Republican) and it's never resulted in compromise or consensus. I think this has happened three times, and each time the parties refuse to compromise and bet it all on the coin flip, or more accurately, drawing a name from Lincoln's hat.
I think a fair number of the Justices sitting on the Supreme Court disapproved of the Nuremberg trials for draping victor's justice in the costume of due process, as well as Justice Jackson accepting the appointment to act as a prosecutor. But I don't think these views were made public at the time.
I like Maus, though it's a bit overrated. Both my kids read it probably around middle school age. I like comic books, but have absolutely no problem eliminating comic books from school requirements. I believe there are some serious long-term consequences of post-literate society.
So, in 1864, several states did not appoint any electors. So the required majority was reduced accordingly, but a elector appointed by (Republican) Nevada did not vote, which very slightly reduced Lincoln's chance of gaining a majority.
The twelfth amendment states: "The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed . . ."
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Wednesday Writs: January 6th Defendants Edition”
Looks like he raised double jeopardy claims based upon the State Attorney's original dismissal of his criminal case. Because of ethical issues, a special prosecutor was appointed who filed new charges, and he was convicted of five out of six of these. Smollett's attorney's unsuccessfully filed various motions prior to trial (double-jeopardy, breach of contract, and lack of authority for a special prosecutor), but these order(s) were not appealed prior to trial.
The prosecutor argued three points:
1. The case was dismissed nolle prosequi and double jeopardy does not attach to a mere decision not to prosecute before jeopardy attaches.
2. Smollett claims that his forfeiture of the bond constituted jeopardy. But the prosecutor claims that was an entirely voluntary act, not ordered by the court and there were no findings of guilt or innocent.
3. Also, in appointing a special prosecutor, the judge found that all of the previous filings were void because there was no duly appointed State's Attorney. (I believe this has to do with the State's Attorney recusing herself, but not actually recusing herself)
"
ww4: Smollett's sentence has been stayed pending disposition of his appeal by a 2-1 Appellate Court decision. His 150 day sentence would likely have meant 75 days in jail with good behavior. The main finding is here:
"FINDING that the defendant has been convicted on non-violent offenses and that this Court will be unable to dispose of the instant appeal before the defendant would have served his entire sentence of incarceration . . ."
"
He's in his own cell with access to the common room on an individual basis. He's safe from downtown Chicago.
On “Wednesday Writs: Congressional Maps Mania Edition”
WW 2: I don't recall which law firm(s) I read about, but I believe more than one in the UK have drawn from representing Russian government/businesses because of a consumer boycott led by a former ambassador to Russia who is circulating lists. I don't recall any discussion of Jewish manuscripts, just that clients have informed the firms they are leaving because of their representation of other clients.
"
I have no prediction, but I think it would be pretty easy for SCOTUS to distinguish a case in which voters acted as a legislative body and one in which a court is using judicial power to overrule legislation. The proper role for judicial review seems like it raises a lot of different thorny issues.
On “A Boymom’s Thoughts on Girls’ Athletics”
In my experience with club soccer, the dynamics are a bit different. A girl playing on a boy's team has usually been borrowed from a girl's team. She is playing both. Usually though it's a sign of a thin club because otherwise they would be borrowing a younger boy.
On “What Russian Officials Think of the Invasion of Ukraine”
But in this case, the steak is lying between its paws.
On “Wednesday Writs: Judge Jackson, Facts Be Damned Edition”
Good takes. I would simply add as a point of emphasis that the certification of this class posed the most potential harm to those with the strongest, largest discrimination claims. And I didn't see any reason denial of the class would preclude individual race discrimination claims.
"
I hope to live in a nation some day where a woman will not be judged by the color of her husband's beard.
"
My initial observation was that since her opinion was not appealed, its hard to believe it was outside of judicial norms. If the decision was that bad, there is a process (though not often effective for smaller cases).
But Clemon's letter complains that she entered an order denying class certification, and waited 54 days to issue her full opinion, which "knowingly" frustrated the appeal rights of plaintiffs. This seems to raise the stakes a lot because Clemons is accusing Jackson of abuse of judicial process to shield her decision from review. Alternatively, the underlying assumption to this complaint is that plaintiffs' attorneys blew an appeal deadline, committing malpractice.
I wouldn't assume malice from judges for delays, and to the extent Clemons is complaining that counsel was lulled into waiting for the full opinion, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
On “Sunday Morning! “Nothing the Same, Everything Haunted” by Gary Barwin”
I've been watching some late 60s Ukrainian movies for some reason. My favorite has been Viy (1967), which apparently was the only Soviet era horror movie. Based upon a Ukrainian folk tale from Gogol; Viy is not very scary, and often pretty funny.
Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors (1965) is Ukraine's biggest international hit. It is a tale of lost love in the Carpathian mountains, whose colorful, dreamy images and depictions of village life among the Hutsul people are the main draws. The director found it difficult to get subsequent projects approved, and would eventually serve almost five years in a prison work camp. I've seen various accusations, one of which is that the Armenian was viewed as a Ukrainian nationalist for not dubbing this movie in Russian.
The cinematographer for Shadows directed The Eve of Ivan Kupalo (1968), which may or may not have been banned. It is also based upon a Gogol tale of a Faustian bargain made in a Cossack village in Central Ukraine. Its short seventy minutes is visual onslaught of surreal images. I was riveted, but mostly uncomprehending.
These movies are all at odds with the demands of Soviet realism, but it appears that for a brief moment the explanation that these are "folk" stories, some by an officially respected writer (Stalin's favorite) could get the film approved.
On “Thursday Throughput: The Trailing Edge of Omicron Edition”
We don't have vaccine passports in Illinois, which doesn't stop Illinois Democrats from violating the indoor masking rule when they party:
https://capitolfax.com/2022/02/07/question-of-the-day-3391/
"
The situation here has changed a lot in the last two weeks. A trial judge ruled that the school mandates were illegal and enjoined the state from enforcing them. The next day half of the teachers at my son's high school stopped wearing masks. They are all vaccinated or obtained an exception.
The Governor criticized the judge's poor legal reasoning (she was appointed by the state supreme court to hear all of the pandemic cases against the state) and pursued an appeal. Several days later, the legislature vetoed renewal of the school policy, and then yesterday the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as moot because the policy no longer exists.
"
CDC, always on time to be late.
On “Nicholas Kristof, We Hardly Got To Know Ye”
Illinois has had a durational residency requirement since the 1818 Constitution, and does not appear to have changed much in the several subsequent constitutions. It does appear though that when the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rahm Emanual's eligibility to run for mayor of Chicago that the requirement is now merely a domicile requirement like Oregon's. The law requires the candidate to be eligible to vote (which is a domicile requirement), plus "reside in" Chicago for one year. The second part does not appear to serve any function any more.
On “A Proposal for the 28th Amendment”
Technically, that raises the issue of limits on Congress delegating "legislative power" to an executive agency. And Congress makes that delegation subject to judicial review, so there are checks against Presidential overreach built into law.
"
I am not certain that the President's power stems from the election process. The U.S. has a written Constitution which gives the President sole "executive power," which is not defined. I think in other Constitutional systems, powers are codified or built upon a long historical tradition.
The U.S. has a strong judiciary which has interpreted the scope of the executive Power, often on separation of powers principles, i.e. that the power is structurally sound given legislative checks. Some executive Power escapes judicial review because of limitations of the judiciary (case and controversy requirement or mootness for example) Overall, my concern would be that systematically combining separate powers with this historical background would simply mean unchecked power.
OTOH, the President would not appear to have any power to enforce party discipline by calling elections or taking the whip from rebel members. That could lead to its own kind of paralysis.
"
2. Congressional districts are not in the Constitution. The first Congress used multi-member districts, but most states moved to single-member districts and then Congress passed a statute in 1842 requiring multi-member districts. That suggests to me something that became popular in the various states was subsequently made obligatory for all, a common dynamic and I wonder how easy it would be to reverse. But the first step I think would be repeal the statute.
On “Are Democrats Finally Learning How to Play Hardball?”
Yeah, nothing has changed for me other than I've moved from a Republican sink to a Democrat spread, which probably means that even though the odds will not favor the Republicans, there will likely be more competition on the ballot.
As Will Rogers noted, a politician is just like a pickpocket; it’s almost impossible to get one to reform. The only thing that's really changed is that the mainstream media started cheering for pickpockets.
On “Supreme Court Allows Alabama Redistricting Plan, Overturns Lower Court 5-4”
One simple step would be to eliminate the federal law requiring single member Congressional districts in every state. A more controversial step would be to amend the law to require at-large elections.
From a Democrat perspective, their coalition is geographically concentrated, putting them at a disadvantage in any territorial districting. Probably reduces black representation to the extent it benefits from majority-minority districts, so this has internal resistance. Not sure how Republicans would see any benefit from this, but probably could be persuaded that its the state's right to choose. Some experiments might increase their popularity. Independents would like the greater choice.
"
Illinois has a coin flip if the political branches cannot reach an agreement (usually when the governor is Republican) and it's never resulted in compromise or consensus. I think this has happened three times, and each time the parties refuse to compromise and bet it all on the coin flip, or more accurately, drawing a name from Lincoln's hat.
On “Robert Taft: Infuriating Man of Principle”
I think a fair number of the Justices sitting on the Supreme Court disapproved of the Nuremberg trials for draping victor's justice in the costume of due process, as well as Justice Jackson accepting the appointment to act as a prosecutor. But I don't think these views were made public at the time.
On “Maus and The “Ban””
I like Maus, though it's a bit overrated. Both my kids read it probably around middle school age. I like comic books, but have absolutely no problem eliminating comic books from school requirements. I believe there are some serious long-term consequences of post-literate society.
On “Alternate Electors: The Illusion and Pretense of Lawfulness to the Unlawful”
So, in 1864, several states did not appoint any electors. So the required majority was reduced accordingly, but a elector appointed by (Republican) Nevada did not vote, which very slightly reduced Lincoln's chance of gaining a majority.
"
The twelfth amendment states: "The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed . . ."
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.