Supreme Court says criminal convictions require unanimous juries

Re:Supreme Court says criminal convictions require unanimous... by freepor on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @04:17AM (#22933034)

The Supreme Court decided a long time ago that the Constitution said whatever the justices thought it should say. The rest of the government went along with this concept. Overall, I think it's been a positive thing as the House of Representatives, then Senate, and then Presidency sequentially fell into complete discredit.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court says criminal convictions require unanimous... by SllX on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @05:20AM (#22933327)

Living constitutionalism is not a universally agreed upon judicial philosophy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court says criminal convictions require unanimous... by freepor on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @12:28PM (#22936469)

No, but empirically it's what the justices have been using for over 50 years. Decisions like Wickard v. Filburn and Obergefell don't just come from "living constitutionalism" -- they are just completely made up out of whole cloth.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court says criminal convictions require unanimous... by SllX on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @05:40PM (#22939611)

There are justices that subscribe to living constitutionalism, yes. And fewer of them than there was 4 years ago.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court says criminal convictions require unanimous... by krapp on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @05:32AM (#22933396)

Neither is strict constitutionalism.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court says criminal convictions require unanimous... by SllX on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @06:09AM (#22933543)

Well there’s also textualism.

[ Parent | on HN ]