"There has been no wholesale revision of D.C.’s criminal code since 1901 — a time when D.C. did not have home rule."

​

I find it crazy this hasn't happened since. I haven't read everything being voted on but seems like a step in the right direction. I did read that even if it's voted on, most of it wouldn't go into effect until 2025 which feels a long way away.

Haul it over to the dump.

I have to say I'm surprised (in a good way) at some of the changes proposed by Allen. They seem reasonable.

[deleted]

I personally don't like this section.

> For example, the bill restores the right to a jury trial for most misdemeanor offenses — though, in the latest version of the bill, the changes would be phased in slowly over time to account for the extra burden it will put on the city’s court.

I think low level offenders will request jury trials in hopes that cases get dropped by an already overburdened system. We have enough petty crime that is not prosecuted already. For me, it reduces the quality of life in this city.

[deleted]

[deleted]

> My guess is they feel like the right to a jury trial is more important

And i agree with this in theory. I just think the city will need to massively expand it's resources on all things court related. I haven't seen any history from Allen that would lead me to believe he will support expanding those resources.

Sure, but we do have a constitutional right to trial by jury and I think people should have a right to defend themselves.

I one hundred percent agree with this. I did a detail at the misdemeanor section of the USAO from the federal agency I worked at and I can say that just expanding jury trials alone would vastly increase the amount of resources needed to prosecute these cases. On a typical court day, we'd have a docket of anywhere from 25-75 cases, and many days when multiple cases were set for trial. They often would not go for various reasons (defendant didn't show up, case pleaded out, defense counsel wanted more time to review several GBs of body worn camera), but if they did go you'd often get handed a case jacket from a colleague who already had a trial and have to try the case on the fly before a judge. Jury trials would make this impracticable (you need so much more prep to present to a jury than a judge) and would hinder the prosecution of misdemeanors, many of which are quality-of-life crimes (for example, car window smash-and-grabs). None of this to mention as well the burden on the citizenry because a defendant wants to have 12 people consider whether he or she shoplifted from Target.
I see online that people are always blaming the USAO for not being diligent enough in prosecuting crimes. What I don't think people realize is how stretched thin the USAO is. They also don't realize that one of the Public Defender Services' overarching goals is to create busywork and delay for the USAO, making it harder for the USAO to prosecute their clients. The less time the USAO has to devote to cases, the more it needs to focus on the low hanging fruit and less on the more marginal (but still real) criminal cases. That end result appears to be exactly the intended goal.

Being MPD I’m dreading Every. Fucking. Case. that’s worth prosecuting being an all-day court affair. It’ll be good for the junior AUSAs to get trial experience I guess.

Charles Allen voted to reduce the MPD budget by $15mn right before a crime wave hit DC. This guy is a classic ‘defund the police’ politician.

The city can't hire more prosecutors or Superior Court judges. Congress has to do that. And that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

This essentially decriminalizes a huge swath of low-level offenses. And there is no way the Council does not realize this.

Is there a reason you don't have concern the other way where prosecutors might bully people into taking plea deals or bulldoze someone b/c of the imbalance of power? There's a burden of proof on the prosecution.

Hopefully the USAODC will be more clear in what they are against in the markup.

"We still have concerns with multiple aspects of this bill and believe that some provisions, while well-intentioned, could undermine community safety and impede the administration of justice in our courts."

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/us-attorneys-offices-statement-dc-criminal-code-reform

The reason is because the balance is shifted so far in favor of the defense right now that it's highly difficult to successfully prosecute even many very obvious slam dunk cases. Prosecutors in DC are not bullying the innocent into taking plea deals, they have enough trouble getting the people with very obvious illegal guns in jail.

You have to pay attention to the facts on the ground and adjust your positions accordingly. National trends and narratives are often not what's happening on the ground locally.

Basically what Charles Allen is doing is making the harassment of women, stalking, verbal abuse, etc consequence free.

The police may arrest someone and charge them and then that person will be out in the street free to commit the same offenses for the next 2-3 years while they wait for their trial date.

That, or more cases will get dropped. DC residents will love getting several times the amount of jury summons.

Ideally they could build a second courthouse EOTR and run some classes cases through there and take the pressure off 500 Indiana Avenue.

Yeah, MD voters this year are asked to increase the limit for a jury trial because the system is burdened by a bunch of low level criminals for crimes ~ $10,000 dollars who take the jury trial to drag out the proceedings or leverage against the prosecutor for a better deal.

[deleted]

[deleted]

The jury right starts when a crime has a sentence six months or greater. That’s why DC Code currently has a split between charges that have 180 days max sentence vs. six months and above. Looking it up in SCOTUS it’s Baldwin v New York.

But when you have some of the same people committing crimes, wouldn't putting them away longer necessarily bring down the level of crime in that particular area where that person operated? So, putting aside the deterrent effect, simply putting a criminal away should bring down crime, since that person no longer has the freedom to commit crime.

According to the Supreme Court that right only extends to crimes with possible punishment of over 6 months imprisonment.

You can still defend yourself in a bench trial.

[deleted]

What would be the purpose behind restoring jury trials for misdemeanors offenses? From an outsider's perspective, it seems like a substantial waste of resources that could be used for more serious trials.

The real question is what was the crime rate before Allen moved to defund the police and what is it now? Then imagine if we had defunded the police.

[deleted]

DC never defunded the police

[deleted]

BTW, the murder rate per capita in DC is multiple times higher than NYC for example

[deleted]

Homicides were +14% in 2021 for a total of 226. Recent low was 88 in 2012. All much higher than NYC on a per capita basis.

[deleted]

Well, proposing to defund the police surely would not have helped. I would suggest to start with enforcing all existing laws including misdemeanors.

Interesting I didn’t know about that! Thanks!

It’s the largest city in the US and one that has until recently, been incredibly successful in bringing down crime. So yeah, maybe DC might learn a thing or two.

[deleted]

Huh? The police budget was not cut because Bowzer and others objected.

Not having a jury trial doesn't mean you don't have a defense, it just means the judge decides.

Theoretically we would rather just have trustworthy judges, but in practice that doesn't happen often enough. Still, if expanded jury trials mean less prosecution of low level crime, thats going to be a net negative for society.

It has an effect, just not as large an effect as certainty of punishment. Modest sentences in a rehabilitative setting but a 100% closure and conviction rate is the ideal.

> People don't commit crimes thinking "what's the punishment for this if I get caught".

That's exactly why fare jumping became normalized after the DC Council decriminalized it.

/s

Wow, you know your argument is weak when you crow about DC’s murder rate comparing favorably to Cleveland and Baton Rouge. DC is the capital of the United States visited by thousands of tourists each year. It can do better.

[deleted]

[deleted]

I see this repeated a lot but im not so sure its that simple. Here is an interesting article https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2014/09/weighing-imprisonment-and-crime#:~:text=Rosenfeld%3A%20The%20best%20we%20can,25%20percent%20of%20the%20reduction which seems to suggest that increased carceration does have a "moderate" effect on crime.

>I hate it because it doesn’t make Metro fare evasion an automatic capital offense

-Half the people on this sub, probably

Prosecutors when the government is asked to meet the burden it is constitutionally required to meet: 😡😡😡

Higher penalties are pointless. that just ensures more people are slaving away in prisoners for longer. It's not like they rehabilitate and longer sentences do not deter any more than short.

Prior testimony here https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/us-attorneys-office-testifies-hearing-revised-criminal-code-act-2021. Also, Graves and staff have spoken at MANY community meetings re: this topic, can likely be found on ANC YT pages.

[deleted]

Yes, because if the government wants to accuse you of a crime and brand you with a criminal record for life, we should make that as easy on them as possible and not expend too many resources making them prove it. /s

Rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

> The right to a jury applies only to offenses in which the penalty is imprisonment for longer than six months.

....

> The right to a jury has always depended on the nature of the offense with which the defendant is charged. Petty offenses—those punishable by imprisonment for no more than six months—are not covered by the jury requirement.[2] Even where multiple petty offenses are concerned, the total time of imprisonment possibly exceeding six months, the right to a jury trial does not exist.

I didn’t specify federal constitutional rights. The purpose behind jury trials any time the government wants to brand you a criminal and curtail your liberty is to ensure that your right not to be convicted absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt is respected.

I mean, that's what the Supreme Court says, but that's not what the Constitution says.

> The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

It's pretty cut-and-dry. Trials of ALL crimes (except impeachment) shall be by jury. The Supreme Court routinely ignores the Constitution, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.

Sixth Amendment:

> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

This also doesn't specify anything about the severity of the crime or the potential punishment.

The Supreme Court just made up shit, as it is wont to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_v._New_York

Edit: Not sure why I'm being downvoted for accurately quoting the Constitution, but you do you, folks.

That might be how it's done, but that's in direct opposition to the plain language of the Constitution.

Article 3, Section 2: > The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

That doesn't say anything about the severity of crime or the potential punishment of the crime. It says "all Crimes".

Sixth Amendment:

> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

This also doesn't specify anything about the severity of the crime or the potential punishment.

The Supreme Court just made up shit, as it is wont to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_v._New_York

Sure, that's what the Supreme Court says, but that's in direct opposition to the plain text of the Constitution.

rticle 3, Section 2: > The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

That doesn't say anything about the severity of crime or the potential punishment of the crime. It says "all Crimes".

Sixth Amendment:

> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

This also doesn't specify anything about the severity of the crime or the potential punishment.

What’s the relative proportion of crime that police prevent vs. react to, in your opinion?

Ya we all know how MPD feels about due process

I wonder what scapegoat people will turn to once this goes into effect and the city stays basically the same

That's cool and all that you think you know better than the 120+ years of experience that sits on the Supreme Court bench.. but you could at least read the Opinion from the case and see that prior cases dating back pre-1890 long established the definition of "petty" offenses not being covered by the Constitution.

It's easy for you to sit there today and say "the Constitution is written plainly!" but it is a whole other thing to look at the context and realize that words had different meanings in 1787. Crime and punishment were so different back then, and even the concept of an organized Police Department wasn't really established yet at the time.

The context matters.

It's very easy to sit here today and say that "all crimes" means "all crimes" because that's what it fucking says.

Imagine living in 2022 and still thinking that the Supreme Court doesn't just make shit up sometimes.

You obviously haven't read the case opinion or done any research at all on the historical context of the word "crime."

Page 59/60 goes in depth into the historical definition of the word "crime" and how it did not include misdemeanors in how we now classify things. The founders literally had two words for what we know today as "crime." The Supreme Court didn't just pull shit out of nowhere in their decision, they viewed it in the historical context of the language.

I just read that, and it literally supports what I said. "All crimes" means "all crimes".

I will chime in with agreement on the certainty of punishment being a key part of deterrence Maybe, or possibly punishing somebody with a long sentence 3 years after the alleged crime I feel confident in saying will not do much to prevent crime.

Does this mean that the no cash bail movement that activists have been pushing leads to an increase in crime? It's an interesting question and I guess we will know the answer after the studies are finished 10 years from today.

It.. doesn't support your view, at all?

The text explains that "Crimes" in the context of 1787 meant crimes above what we now call Misdemeanors. There's a reason section 4 of Article 2 specifies "crimes and misdemeanors" for which conviction would remove a President and other Executive Officers from power.

> A crime, or misdemeanor, is an act committed, or omitted, in violation of a public either forbidding or commanding it. This general definition comprehends both crimes and misdemeanors; which, properly speaking, are mere synonymous terms; though in common usage the word 'crimes' is made to denote such offenses as are of a deeper and more atrocious dye; while smaller faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name 'misdemeanors'

And:

> Constitution. But the unanimous court, speaking by MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY, held that "the words, 'treason, felony, or other crime,' in their plain and obvious import, as well as in their legal and technical sense, embrace every act forbidden and made punishable by the law of the State. The word 'crime' of itself includes every offense, from the highest to the lowest in the grade of offenses, and includes what are called 'misdemeanors,' as well as treason and felony."

> Most of the currently accepted definitions of the term "crime" are in harmony with the above statement of MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY. Thus BISHOP, in his NEW CRIMINAL LAW, says, "A crime is any wrong which the govern- ment deems injurious to the public at large, and punishes through a judicial proceeding in its own name." ? 32. And again: "We have three degrees of crime,-the highest being called Treason, the intermediate grade Felony, and the name of the lowest being Misdemeanor." ? 602. BLACK'S LAW DIC- TIONARY says: "The better use appears to be to make crime a term of broad and general import, including both felonies and misdemeanors, and hence covering all infractions of the criminal law. In this sense it is not a technical phrase, strictly speaking (as 'felony' and 'misdemeanor' are), but a con- venient general term. In this sense, also, 'offense' or 'public offense' should be used as synonymous with it." BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY defines "crime" as "An act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it * * * A wrong which the government notices as injurious to the public, and punishes in what is called a criminal proceeding in its own name." And the CENTURY DICTIONARY defines it as "An act or omission which the law punishes in the name and on behalf of the State, whether because expressly forbidden by statute or because so injurious to the public as to require punishment on grounds of public policy; an offense punishable by law."

All that is exactly what I said it was.

I’m 100% not a fan of Charles Allen but I can admit the changes you cite here are better than what I’d heard they were planning. This does inspire some confidence.

I was concerned they were trying to get rid of strict penalties for rape and other sexual assault charges.

Hopefully Allen realizes that defunding the police isn’t actually going to help reduce crime, no matter how much we would all love that to be the case.

Expecting a jury for every misdemeanor is insane. That simply won’t happen.

In our system, like it or not, the Supreme Court is the final say on what the Constitution says. Not you.

It’s what the commission is recommending. USAO is not.

DC council is broken if this happens.

I imagine that you'll immediately dismiss me as evil, or, more condescendingly, as "uninformed" - but the reason I support long prison sentences - life without parole, in fact - for crimes like murder or rape - is not to rehabilitate, it's to prevent those people from ever murdering or raping another innocent person. As long as they never leave prison, everyone outside of prison is safe from them. And for me, that's the critical thing, to keep society safe from proven murderers and rapists.

After that overwhelming priority, I also feel it is morally obligatory that people who murder or rape suffer for what they did. If someone purposefully takes or ruins a life (via rape), then it is morally wrong for them to have a decent life after that. I imagine you disagree - I suggest reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Junko_Furuta

And then tell me if you still think that rapists and murderers deserve to live a happy life ever again after what they did.

I also don't believe that it's worth spending a dime rehabilitating serious criminals - the odds of success are too low and society can better spend its attention on fixing the problems that lead some people to become criminals (not all people, of course, and not all criminals either - some people are incredibly evil without environmental influence).

Finally, the evidence I've read suggests that deterrence does in fact work, albeit not as much as I'd like. But that comes last in my order of priorities.

Didn’t this story break originally on NPR when the USAO openly stated concern with many of the proposed changes - this would have been about 6 months ago?

Seems … not smart to openly flout this type of feedback.

There’s a response in this thread with USO comments if you care to search for it. I found it interesting.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Being tougher on crime is a good thing. No complaints here

Impossible to measure.

> though in common usage the word 'crimes' is made to denote such offenses as are of a deeper and more atrocious dye; while smaller faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name 'misdemeanors'

It’s the framework we work under. Not under your interpretation.

Hey, I'm reasonable - just a felony is fine. 🤣

Are you talking about what the 2nd amendment actually covered or what some radical lunatic justices created out of whole cloth over 200 years later? Those are two different things.

No cash bail is irrelevant to this, but a good thing done right. Suspects should be held or not held based on assessment of flight or risk to the community, not based on access to wealth. There are certainly activists pushing it who don't want anyone held pre-trial, and those people are morons.

Decriminalizing sex work leads to more sexual trafficking. Used to support it, but there are unintended consequences to balance.

[deleted]

And the rest of it?

I believe it only applies to "well-regulated militias".

Just because the Supreme Court says that the Constitution says pi = 3 doesn't mean the Constitution says pi = 3.

I know what the Supreme Court said. I'm saying that the Constitution doesn't say what the Supreme Court says.

The second amendment is for state control of internal security saying that the federal government cannot take the away the people's right in the form of duly constituted regulated state militias and ability of said state militias to have armories. The nonsense created by the wacko's who took over the NRA in the seventies was invented whole cloth out of nothing.

The question is what happened to crime during the past three years? The police budget isn’t everything. The lax and selective enforcement of crimes like shoplifting and pitching tents in public land sends important signals to would be criminals.

Eh I've looked at enough studies and they make intuitive sense to me. If sex work is decriminalized you would intuitively expect more demand for sex work. More demand for sex work likely means more trafficking. Maybe it if was paired with seriously draconian laws against the men who are purchasing the service.

Strictly construed, the 2nd Amendment only applies to state authorized, organized and trained militias.

[deleted]

I'm saying you can say X, the Supreme Court can say Y - neither of you can dictate what the other (or anyone else) believes - but what the Supreme Court says matters a ton for the laws that affect this land and what you believe matters not at all.

Because for sure, defunding the police is a terrible idea. Only a person living in a dream world would believe otherwise.

Sure. The Supreme Court's opinions is what matter in how law is practiced, not the Constitution. I'm just saying that the Constitution says we have this right even if we functionally don't because the Supreme Court decided it didn't want to listen to the Constitution on this, and the government just goes with that.

[deleted]

That ‘someone’ just talking about defunding the police is council member Charles Allen. He more than talked about it, Allen formally proposed this. Of course, he wants us to forget this.

[deleted]

Great, let’s cut the MPD budget and see crime fall. Can’t wait to see the results

Don’t see where I did that.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Let’s do it. Let’s cut the MPD budget. Great idea.

[deleted]

So happy too. Can't wait to see how well those Defund the Police candidates do in November. Should be a woke landslide.

You have 74K plus comments on Reddit. Wow, that is truly an accomplishment.

[deleted]

Surely though you can also understand that if everyone says "whatever I say is what the Constitution 'says'" then it's pretty useless to even talk about what the Constitution says. It's only useful because there is a singular body that gets to decide how the Constitution applies to our society.

I'm not saying "whatever I say is what the Constitution says". I'm literally directly quoting the Constitution and saying that the Constitution says what the Constitution says. The Constitution is supposed to be the foundation of our country, and it very clearly contradicts what the Supreme Court has decided to actually enforce.

Words have meaning, even if the government ignores it for now.

When you say "words have meaning" and then try to say what is meant by the Constitution, you're implicitly claiming for yourself the ability to decide for everyone what the Constitution means. But you're not the person or entity that our society has empowered to decide what the Constitution means. The Supreme Court is.

I'll use your "words have no meaning" stance and interpret your entire comment to wholly agree with me because I interpret all those words you used with completely new meanings that they've never had before just so I can come to that conclusion.

This is a fun game.

Again, why do you think you are the one who gets to decide the meaning of the words in our Constitution? For more than 200 years, our society has agreed that the Supreme Court is the body that decides the meaning of the words in our Constitution. They don't decide the words that go in the Constitution, but they do decide what they mean. And then our laws have to abide by the meaning they pick.

Again, given that we've let them decide the meaning of the words in the Constitution for more than 200 years, why do you think we should instead let you decide?

Edited to add, since you've misscharacterized or missunderstood me. Words have the meanings that humans assign them. They do not have independent objective meanings. In common usage, their meaning is decided by, well, common usage - and then somewhat codified by dictionary authors. But for lots of specific uses - scientific, legal, academic, etc., it is normal to define key terms - i.e. to say "for the purpose of this document, x, y, and z words will be defined as meaning _____, _____, and ____, as opposed to their common usage.

As a society, we have for more than 200 years agreed that the words in the Constitution are not to be assigned definitions based on each individual's perception of their common usage (which changes over time and differs from region to region and person to person), but instead that the Supreme Court will determine the meaning of the words and combination of words in the Constitution.

Perhaps you understand that and you're arguing in bad faith. Perhaps you don't. I don't know.

I'll use your "words have no meaning" stance and interpret your entire comment to wholly agree with me because I interpret all those words you used with completely new meanings that they've never had before just so I can come to that conclusion.

This is a fun game.

So you're arguing in bad faith. Kudos to you, you wasted time on the internet today, learned nothing even when provided the opportunity, didn't rethink any previously held but ill-founded stances, and looked like an idiot to anyone who bothered to read what you wrote (all 3 of them, perhaps).

You're kinda useless, huh?

I'm not arguing in bad faith. I'm using your own argument. If you think it's in bad faith, then that's very telling of your own argument.

I'm literally just reading the words in the Constitution with their well-known, standard definitions.

Again, I did not argue that words have no meaning, and I already said that words have the meaning humans assign them. Sometimes that meaning comes from common use (although still not as defined by you), but for many specific documents a specific entity chooses the definitions. That's true of academic, legal, scientific, and other documents. In the case of the Constitution, our society has for more than 200 years assigned the Supreme Court the authority to pick the definitions that apply for the words in the Constitution.

Now, I have no doubt you'll continue to reject that - and likely respond in bad faith once again, because this notion challenges your personal yet deeply held notion that you, of all people, know what the words in the Constitution mean and should be able to define them for all of society, even though the bulk of our society has for 200 years agreed that the Supreme Court gets to define those words.

But I encourage you to consider how we would possibly have a meaningful Constitution if everyone, in every Court battle, was allowed to say "I believe that, according to the definitions I think we should use, the Constitution means _________."

So you're saying that the Supreme Court can say that "crimes" actually means "bunnies", and you're telling me that I'm just supposed to accept that as the actual meaning of the word "crimes" in the Constitution and that it's intellectually dishonest/egotistical for me to say that "crimes" just means something like "illegal acts".

What's intellectually dishonest is for you to resort to straw men arguments like the idea that the Supreme Court would decide that "crimes" means "bunnies." But I think you knew that.

You're the one saying that "all crimes" doesn't mean "all crimes" and that I should just be happy with that, so if it doesn't mean "crimes", why shouldn't it mean "bunnies"?

Again, you're being dishonest. I never said you should be happy about anything. I said that our society has for more than 200 years agreed that the Supreme Court gets to define the words in the Constitution for the purpose of using the Constitution, not you. So far, your only response is "but I want to define the words in the Constitution because I think I know what they mean better than the Supreme Court!!!!" But you haven't even once attempted to explain why you think anyone else would accept your definitions rather than accepting the Supreme Court's definitions.

And if you think each individual should get to define the words in the Constitution for themself, you haven't explained how we'll ever be able to resolve any legal dispute with each person picking their own definitions as they choose.

Honestly I think you've come to understand that your point of view is stupid but you don't want to admit (to yourself, I don't care and you don't know me anyway), that you've been stupid, so you just keep flailing here.

So like I said, you're saying that if the Supreme Court defines "all crimes" to mean "all bunnies", we should all just accept it. If the Supreme Court says that the Constitution actually allows for 10-year presidential terms instead of 4-year terms, you're saying that it's intellectually dishonest for me to accurately point out that the Constitution says 4-year terms and that the Supreme Court's opinion is wrong.

I think we should let "all crimes" mean "all crimes" because that's literally the words being used. Now, maybe you can see the words "crimes with punishments of >= 6 months" somewhere in the Constitution, but I don't. Perhaps you can point me to where in the Constitution it says that.

What the Supreme Court says the Constitution says is not the same thing as what the Constitution says.

Does repeating "wah wah, I should get to define what the Constitution says, not the Supreme Court, listen to me! listen to me!" make you feel good?

Well, nobody's going to care what you say the Constitution says anyway. And nobody should.

[deleted]

In addition to defunding the police, please share your other great ideas. I am sure you must have great ones.

[deleted]

My life would be enriched if I knew what other great policy ideas you have beyond defending the police.

[deleted]

So you think the Supreme Court can say "4 years" means "10 years", and I'm wrong to say that the Constitution says otherwise?

You can say whatever you want. But you're wrong to think that you, and not the Supreme Court, should get to pick the definitions used for reading the Constitution. And you're absolutely wacky if you think the rest of us are going to go along with what a blowhard like you says as opposed to what the Supreme Court says.

Popping over from the other thread to laugh at this multiple alter ego weirdo you’re arguing with

I think you're all absolutely whacky if you think that the Supreme Court should get to decide that 4=10, and that everybody who says, "No, 4=4," is a blowhard.

It's fucking stupid, and you're drinking that Kool-Aid with gusto.

1.) The Supreme Court has never done that nor has it done anything like that - that's why our society keeps accepting its decisions.

2.) What's fucking stupid is that in like 50 comments the only "solution" you've been able to propose to your imagined problem is that all of society accept your interpretation of the Constitution, as if you should be our un-elected dictator. Sorry, the rest of us just don't have any respect for you, let alone want you to be the one who gets to decide for the rest of us what the Constitution means. We'll let the Supreme Court keep doing that, thank you very much.

> 1.) The Supreme Court has never done that nor has it done anything like that - that's why our society keeps accepting its decisions.

Except they did when they said "all crimes" doesn't mean "all crimes" and ignored "well-regulated militia".

> 2.) What's fucking stupid is that in like 50 comments the only "solution" you've been able to propose to your imagined problem is that all of society accept your interpretation of the Constitution, as if you should be our un-elected dictator. Sorry, the rest of us just don't have any respect for you, let alone want you to be the one who gets to decide for the rest of us what the Constitution means. We'll let the Supreme Court keep doing that, thank you very much.

What's stupid is that you think the Supreme Court can use whatever definition they fucking want without regard to what the words actually mean, and that you think I'm the crazy one for thinking that that's crazy.

Your interpretation is fucking nuts. Just admit it.

All these comments and your only message is "wah wah wah, I don't like something the Supreme Court decided and I think I should get to decide how the Constitution applies for everyone in the entire country! wah wah wah."

All of your comments are "the Supreme Court can be as corrupt and stupid as possible, and you can't point it out".