Revisiting double jeopardy and more on the broken link.

The Supreme Court will hear argument today on Gamble v. United States, a case that will re-examine the hitherto established doctrine that Double Jeopardy does not apply if the second prosecution is in a “different jurisdiction.” If you’re acquitted of a state offense in Simi Valley, California, you can, under this approach, be tried again in federal court on some concoted theory and God save the defendants.

But wait. There’s wonderful news:

For another, Trump’s Justice Department urged the Supreme Court not to take the case. It says the status quo, allowing state and federal prosecutions, should remain in place.^[1]

Texas and 36 other states want the current skewering of the citizen to continue.

As I posted recently, there’s no connection between ruler and ruled and we see here in the position of the Justice Department and those state governments that they are just fine with prosecutions of individuals for the same crime. Some specious semantics and battery at the state level becomes “deprivation of civil rights” at the federal level, and we all know exactly what a deprivation of civil rights involves, don’t we? Nothing vague, slippery, or spongy about that charge. If I smack you in your face, state law is just not up to the task of punishing me. No, the feds can take after me with something ambiguous and rubbery so if they decide to charge me I’m toast before clerk in U.S. District Court drops the criminal charges in her “in” box.

Despite the clear injunction of the Constitution against double jeopardy, the courts have seen fit to make individuals defend themselves at huge expense from multiple prosecutions backed by the massive resources of the state. Sweet land of liberty.

It’s the same with every other issue you can think of. Congress address the issue of sealing the border? No way. Wayyy too simple. We the People have to wait with hat in hand while Congress and the president patch together “comprehensive immigration law reform” which means, as we all know quite well, The Big Finesse -- eternal delay, insulting lies, industrial strength ambiguity, and a giant middle finger salute to anyone who thinks it a bit odd to turn over the country to third-world hostiles, primitives and parasites as a priority matter. We can’t rush these things and many wise men must confer and craft the perfect fracking immigration “solution” to last through the ages.

Hey! Seal the border and stop all immigration except for people who can dance the Argentine Tango or have a sure-fire cure for ED. Wellll . . . .

Are AntiFa repulsive street thugs who routinely resort to violence against law-abiding citizens? Of course they are. It’s as obvious as your nose that they are lawless scum but one can grow old under the current political arrangements waiting for re-establishment of the King’s Peace.

Even a government headed by a man who spoke of making America great again doesn’t have the wit or the will to crucify filth like Antifa and he’s content to have his Justice Department argue for an extraordinarily oppressive legal interpretation harmful to ordinary citizens. You answered our call, Donald!

Clearly, addressing the needs of citizens is a matter of indifference to the feeble, useless leadership we have. What it is concerned about is maximum power over the citizen and maximum flexibility in going after its enemies. Protection of free speech, dissolution of monopolies, regulation of information utilities, closing borders, retreat from imperial adventure, and crucifying violent criminals take a back seat to the Treason Class getting theirs and solidifying their power.

But kudos for Justice Ginsburg and Justice Thomas for their opposition to the present oppressive approach to double jeopardy. Ginsburg makes a rare foray into concern for the liberty; Thomas has shown a lifetime devotion to it. And how the left despised him when his nomination was considered.

Notes
^[1] "Supreme Court Set To Hear Landmark Case On Double Jeopardy." By Doug Mataconis, Outside the Beltway, 12/4/18.