Josh and Anna 57: Singing the I'm Stuck in the SHU Blues

[Expectopatronus]

Personally, I don’t have a problem with an appeal being granted. If the evidence is solid there could be a hundred appeals and the outcome would be the same. I would also prefer that all appeals be heard than risk an appeal being denied when there actually had been a miscarriage of justice. 

[noseybutt]

16 minutes ago, Expectopatronus said:

Personally, I don’t have a problem with an appeal being granted. If the evidence is solid there could be a hundred appeals and the outcome would be the same. I would also prefer that all appeals be heard than risk an appeal being denied when there actually had been a miscarriage of justice. 

Same. Though the odds are slim to none that SCOTUS will take the case because they tend not to take these kinds of cases and also there are many messy undercurrents in the court right now and touching a child porn case close to an election year is a no-go.

[Father Son Holy Goat]

I believe what was granted was an extension of time to file an appeal. 

[Jigsaw3]

Joshie didn't get to pick his favourite justice: this case goes to Kavanaugh first because Kavanaugh is responsible for matters arising from the Eighth Circuit, which includes Arkansas.

It's not worth it to Kavanaugh to rule on this case anything other than appropriately. I have no time for the man or his ethics, but this is small potatoes.

[sndral]

22 minutes ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

I believe what was granted was an extension of time to file an appeal. 

Yes, the deadline for Josh to file a petition for writ of certiorari was 12/27/23 (90 days after the petition for rehearing en bank was denied.) Josh’s attorney claims to have been too busy to write it, so he’s made a motion for a 60 day extension to file his petition which the Justice for the 8th circuit - Kavanaugh - granted. He now has to file his petition by 2/25/24.

After the petition for writ of certiorari is filed by Josh’s attorney, then the court will decide if they want to hear the case - they decide to hear (granting the petition for cert.) about 1% of the cases seeking cert..

[FiveAcres]

7 hours ago, sndral said:

 

After the petition for writ of certiorari is filed by Josh’s attorney, then the court will decide if they want to hear the case - they decide to hear (granting the petition for cert.) about 1% of the cases seeking cert..

And this is not a SCOTUS that is interested in protecting the rights of real, live, breathing persons: just the rights of states and corporations.

[gustava]

Application (23A554) granted by Justice Kavanaugh extending the time to file until February 25, 2024.

Is this a writ of cert?  Or is this giving him more time to file something?  And is it unusual?  IANAL

 

[noseybutt]

27 minutes ago, gustava said:

Application (23A554) granted by Justice Kavanaugh extending the time to file until February 25, 2024.

Is this a writ of cert?  Or is this giving him more time to file something?  And is it unusual?  IANAL

 

Writ of cert is granted by the court. This is an extension to file.

3 hours ago, FiveAcres said:

And this is not a SCOTUS that is interested in protecting the rights of real, live, breathing persons: just the rights of states and corporations.

And now they will be considering Trump on the CO ballet so…

[Father Son Holy Goat]

He’s a question, due to his crimes has Josh lost the right to vote?

[Giraffe]

4 minutes ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

He’s a question, due to his crimes has Josh lost the right to vote?

Those currently incarcerated don't have the right to vote, regardless of the reason for their incarceration. Depending on the state, anyone with a felony is ineligible to vote and may be for the rest of their lives. ETA It looks like Arkansas may reinstate his right to vote once he's off parole. 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Giraffe

[BensAllergies]

Do Supreme Court justices have to refer all cases for consideration or can they just deny it? Either way I can’t see any dissents happening.

And if Kavanaugh dismisses it without needing to take a vote, could Josh ask for it to be considered en banc, or is that just the lower courts?

[Antimony]

54 minutes ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

He’s a question, due to his crimes has Josh lost the right to vote?

He has. Only a couple states allow federal felons to vote. 

They will be restored upon completion of probation. 

52 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

Those currently incarcerated don't have the right to vote, regardless of the reason for their incarceration. Depending on the state, anyone with a felony is ineligible to vote and may be for the rest of their lives. ETA It looks like Arkansas may reinstate his right to vote once he's off parole. 

Not true for misdemeanors in many states. Generally true for felony convictions. Maine and Vermont and D.C. do not remove voting rights for felons. 

9 minutes ago, BensAllergies said:

Do Supreme Court justices have to refer all cases for consideration or can they just deny it? Either way I can’t see any dissents happening.

And if Kavanaugh dismisses it without needing to take a vote, could Josh ask for it to be considered en banc, or is that just the lower courts?

I am 99.99% sure they can just refuse to hear it. I don't know if this is different than their step of consideration to hear, but cases don't really get heard until...well...they're heard. I'm sure it won't see a docket. 

[Maggie Mae]

52 minutes ago, Antimony said:

He has. Only a couple states allow federal felons to vote. 

Two states allow those convicted of a felony to retain their right to vote while incarcerated: Maine and Vermont. 

Four states only restore the right to vote after the formerly incarcerated person petitions the government: Florida, Kentucky, Virginia, Iowa. 

There are five states where it depends on the type of crime and outcome of a petition. I dont know which states those are. 

The rest are restored automatically after various parts of the sentence are complete. 

 

[Expectopatronus]

The removal of the right to vote rubs me the wrong way. Given that people of colour and people who are poor are largely over represented in jail and prison, this feels like classism and racism by legal means. 

[Giraffe]

49 minutes ago, Expectopatronus said:

The removal of the right to vote rubs me the wrong way. Given that people of colour and people who are poor are largely over represented in jail and prison, this feels like classism and racism by legal means. 

The reason it feels like it is because it is. 

[Mama Mia]

47 minutes ago, Expectopatronus said:

The removal of the right to vote rubs me the wrong way. Given that people of colour and people who are poor are largely over represented in jail and prison, this feels like classism and racism by legal means. 

I agree in general principle, but I think a big issue with being able to vote while in prison is that a - quite literally- captive population is very vulnerable to threats / abuse/ manipulation  if someone with power over them wants them to vote a particular way. 

[Giraffe]

Here's an article about the racist history of not allowing felons to vote.

https://www.aclu.org/news/voting-rights/racist-roots-denying-incarcerated-people-their-right-vote
 

[sndral]

6 hours ago, BensAllergies said:

Do Supreme Court justices have to refer all cases for consideration or can they just deny it? Either way I can’t see any dissents happening.

And if Kavanaugh dismisses it without needing to take a vote, could Josh ask for it to be considered en banc, or is that just the lower courts?

Once Josh’s attorney files his petition for certiorari by 2/25/24, it will likely be assigned to one of the law clerks in the cert. pool* to brief & write a memo including a recommendation on whether the court should hear the case.

Law clerks are typically recent graduates of law school who are admitted to practice law (passed a bar exam.) In the case of the U.S. Supreme Court they attended top law schools & usually have clerked for a year for a federal Judge. 
I believe 7 of the 9 Justices assign one of their clerks to participate in the cert. pool*.

Based on the memos & other info. the Chief Justice compiles a list of cases he thinks are worthy of consideration. Any case that doesn’t make the list is summarily denied. 

The Justices discuss the cases that make the list & vote on whether to grant the petition for cert. (ie whether to hear the case.) If less than 4 Justices vote to hear a case the petition is summarily denied.

Something like 99% of cases seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court are summarily denied & that’s the end of any appellate review.

If 4 or more Justices vote to hear a case, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted & the parties file their briefs, have oral argument, & then the court issues an opinion affirming or overruling the lower court.

* I believe 2 Justices currently don’t participate in the cert. pool, so presumably their law clerks wade through all of the petitions. Here’s a link to a paper discussing the process for which cases the Court decides to hear https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Professor-Richard-Lazarus.pdf.

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by sndral

[Kiki03910]

Purity ball alert. Yet another example of Josh's good friend Mike Johnson being a sick freak:

https://news.yahoo.com/check-video-mike-johnson-taking-055205293.html

These people are so fucked up.

[gustava]

14 hours ago, Maggie Mae said:

Four states only restore the right to vote after the formerly incarcerated person petitions the government: Florida, Kentucky, Virginia, Iowa. 

In Virginia, the governor must approve re-instatement and Maga gov. Dumkin is not in the mood to do so.

[Antimony]

13 hours ago, Expectopatronus said:

The removal of the right to vote rubs me the wrong way. Given that people of colour and people who are poor are largely over represented in jail and prison, this feels like classism and racism by legal means. 

Exactly what it is. See The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. 

[Maggie Mae]

1 hour ago, gustava said:

In Virginia, the governor must approve re-instatement and Maga gov. Dumkin is not in the mood to do so.

Virginia must be one of the five I mentioned, then. That I couldn't remember. Or things changed recently. 

[Vivi_music]

On 12/20/2023 at 5:51 PM, Giraffe said:

Those currently incarcerated don't have the right to vote, regardless of the reason for their incarceration. Depending on the state, anyone with a felony is ineligible to vote and may be for the rest of their lives. ETA It looks like Arkansas may reinstate his right to vote once he's off parole. 

That is so crazy to me. Canadians who are incarcerated retain their right to vote. They even vote in the riding that was their last known address or even the address of their spouse, partner, next of kin, etc.

They actually set up voting polls in the prisons in the days before the general election day.

[Father Son Holy Goat]

24 minutes ago, Vivi_music said:

That is so crazy to me. Canadians who are incarcerated retain their right to vote. They even vote in the riding that was their last known address or even the address of their spouse, partner, next of kin, etc.

They actually set up voting polls in the prisons in the days before the general election day.

Imagine how far prison reform could go if prisoners could vote. 

[Giraffe]

6 minutes ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

Imagine how far prison reform could go if prisoners could vote. 

And that's why the US refuses to allow prisoners to vote.