4 ms·

Another way to see that would be the Supreme Court affirming that if the SEC accuses you of what is clearly common law fraud, and wants to penalize you million

Another way to see that would be the Supreme Court affirming that if the SEC accuses you of what is clearly common law fraud, and wants to penalize you millions of dollars, they are required by the Constitution to bring those charges to Article III courts where you can exercise all the rights of the accused recognized by the Constitution (most specifically in this case, trial by jury).

walrushunter 2y ago
There's no other way to see it. I'm not sure why the parent comment decided to bring politics into it. You'd think the idea that the government shouldn't be able to accuse you of a crime and take your money without a trial would be bipartisan.
- cheschire 2y ago
  There was a recent video by John Oliver going deep into the politics of the supreme court, so it's in the public discourse enough recently that the two concepts of justice and politics are probably linked for some folks. It's one of those annoying things that tends to happen a month out from presidential elections I guess.
  - ThunderSizzle 2y ago
    John Oliver has enough bad takes and lies that I'm at the point that if he says something, I assume it's a lie at this point. Or at least his conclusions are lies
    - cheschire 2y ago
      Yeah I tend to take it more as satire or wild exaggeration than real investigative reporting. When his buddy Joel McHale, who also acted on the fictional TV show "Community" along with John Oliver, tried making his own hot take comedy news show, it really put things in perspective for me. Now I watch it for the comedy aspect as much as anything I see on other news media these days. Take what I see with John Oliver amped up to a solid 9 or 10, divide it by 10, and that's probably how serious or impactful the thing actually is that he is reporting on.
- wpietri 2y ago
  > I'm not sure why the parent comment decided to bring politics into it. The Federalist Society and their fellow travelers have been politicizing the Supreme Court for literal decades. To talk about the Supreme Court while avoiding any mention of politics is a itself a stridently political act.
  - skybrian 2y ago
    Further back then that. Supreme Court has been a political institution all along. (The Marbury vs. Madison decision was an interesting political maneuver.)
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  > I'm not sure why the parent comment decided to bring politics into it. It's the standard way to denounce decisions you don't like.
adrr 2y ago
So you request a jury trial. I don’t get what your point is. Its a civil penality because the SEC isn’t a law enforcement agency and it enforces regulations. Regulations have been around since George Washington was president when the Whiskey Act was passed allowing the government to form regulations on taxing whiskey including levying fines on people.
- twoodfin 2y ago
  You couldn’t “request a jury trial”. That was the point of the suit. Yes, civil penalties are a thing. But the argument that prevailed was that this was not a penalty for speeding or not paying enough tax, this was a penalty for alleged actions that amounted to common law fraud & Congress can’t delegate the adjudication of common law—civil or criminal—to an administrative agency.
- WrongAssumption 2y ago
  And regulations are still enforceable. What is not enforceable is to make a regulation that parallels an existing law, and deny a federal trial because it’s now a “regulation”.

walrushunter 2y ago

There's no other way to see it. I'm not sure why the parent comment decided to bring politics into it. You'd think the idea that the government shouldn't be able to accuse you of a crime and take your money without a trial would be bipartisan.

cheschire 2y ago
There was a recent video by John Oliver going deep into the politics of the supreme court, so it's in the public discourse enough recently that the two concepts of justice and politics are probably linked for some folks. It's one of those annoying things that tends to happen a month out from presidential elections I guess.
- ThunderSizzle 2y ago
  John Oliver has enough bad takes and lies that I'm at the point that if he says something, I assume it's a lie at this point. Or at least his conclusions are lies
  - cheschire 2y ago
    Yeah I tend to take it more as satire or wild exaggeration than real investigative reporting. When his buddy Joel McHale, who also acted on the fictional TV show "Community" along with John Oliver, tried making his own hot take comedy news show, it really put things in perspective for me. Now I watch it for the comedy aspect as much as anything I see on other news media these days. Take what I see with John Oliver amped up to a solid 9 or 10, divide it by 10, and that's probably how serious or impactful the thing actually is that he is reporting on.
wpietri 2y ago
> I'm not sure why the parent comment decided to bring politics into it. The Federalist Society and their fellow travelers have been politicizing the Supreme Court for literal decades. To talk about the Supreme Court while avoiding any mention of politics is a itself a stridently political act.
- skybrian 2y ago
  Further back then that. Supreme Court has been a political institution all along. (The Marbury vs. Madison decision was an interesting political maneuver.)
tbrownaw 2y ago
> I'm not sure why the parent comment decided to bring politics into it. It's the standard way to denounce decisions you don't like.

adrr 2y ago

So you request a jury trial. I don’t get what your point is. Its a civil penality because the SEC isn’t a law enforcement agency and it enforces regulations. Regulations have been around since George Washington was president when the Whiskey Act was passed allowing the government to form regulations on taxing whiskey including levying fines on people.

twoodfin 2y ago
You couldn’t “request a jury trial”. That was the point of the suit. Yes, civil penalties are a thing. But the argument that prevailed was that this was not a penalty for speeding or not paying enough tax, this was a penalty for alleged actions that amounted to common law fraud & Congress can’t delegate the adjudication of common law—civil or criminal—to an administrative agency.
WrongAssumption 2y ago
And regulations are still enforceable. What is not enforceable is to make a regulation that parallels an existing law, and deny a federal trial because it’s now a “regulation”.