This was a great week in our United States Supreme Court. In fact, it has been beyond that. First, they recognized the necessity that the Government prove that a person charged with illegal analog drugs know that in fact that the drugs are illegal analog drugs, and that the belief that they are something else that is legal provides the defendant with a defense. Ergo, the lack of specific intent to violate the law. Next the Big Court found that the Armed Career Criminal Act was void for lack of specificity and thus violative of due process of law. Then they found that discrimination in housing can be found upon a conclusion supported by circumstantial evidence without the production of direct evidence. And lastly, they ruled that States cannot ban same sex marriage. A banner week. Now can we turn to our very own Minnesota Supreme Court and how they did rule and how we project they would have ruled on the same subjects.
First, specific intent was found to be completely unnecessary in State v. Wenthe. If you are a priest and you have sex with a member of the congregation you are guilty of a sex crime whether you believed you were the person’s pastor or not. Specific intent doesn’t impress the majority of our Supreme Court, with the exception of Justice Page, who has labeled this decision as dangerous and new and usupportable law. It’s worse than that. It is evidence that our Supreme Court has little or no understanding of the basic tenets of criminal law as it has been developed down through the ages.
How would they have ruled if they had been presented with the same questions that our United States Supreme Court was presented with as detailed above. Since they don’t cotton to the venerable reasoning that gives us the necessity for specific intent in most crimes, they would have held that if the pills in your hand were inscrutable then you must be guilty of something. You see bad people go around with pills and they must be guilty.
There is no way they (MN. Sup Ct.) would have held the Armed Career Criminal Act unconstitutional because they would have manipulated the language, twisted the meaning and claimed they could understand it so why didn’t everybody else. After all, look at the folks it was meant to apply to and fact that it calls for life in prison should be of no moment.
Well, in re same sex marriage, if our state had prohibited it. Gosh, it’s the will of the legislature and who are they to oversee that. (which of course is their job) Chief Justice Gildea, Justice Anderson, Justice Stras, Justice Dietzen would have affirmed the right of the legislature to regulate State licensure and would see no problem. Justice Lillihaug and Justice Wright I am unable to predict and Justice Page would have dissented seeing that type of statute as discriminatory, as it clearly is.
We live in a state with a Supreme Court that leaves something to be desired. Again, we would be far better off if our Court was under the leadership of Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama. He follows the dictates of the Ten Commandments and his Supreme Being. I really don’t know who our Court follows with one exception. It seems, in my humble opinion, the Minnesota Supreme Court decides what result they want and then backs into it.
Anybody care to disagree? Take a look at United District Court Judge Schiltz’s opinion in the post conviction case of State v. Bobadilla. (Bobadilla v. Carlson, 570 Fed. Sup. 2nd 1098, Aff’d, 575 Fed 3rd 785). The Judge found that the Minnesota Supreme Court disregarded settled Federal Law and manipulated the facts to reach their desired end. It appeared in that case, that Justice Page was the only Justice that read the case law from the federal courts and understood it. What could be worse conduct by a State Supreme Court. They decided they didn’t care for Mr. Bobadilla and manipulated the facts and law to keep him in prison. Make you feel safe?