Case, to determine how long they stay in prison it might be five years, it might be three whatever the case is, you have to make a decision based on the crime and what the potential is for them to recommitment. When i looked at these determinations, a large part of it was the weapon involved in the crime. So it could be a simple drug case that may have been a situation where someone was actually not actually involved in a violent offense but they happened to have a weapon in the car. Or during the process of the crime, they had a concealed weapon with them. So therefore, immediately the crime itself escalated in terms of what the penalty would be. And so even in our determinations for a person for parole, we had to look at very clearly whether or not there was weapons. As a matter of fact, because we have such a large prison populations, we even had examiners that would look over the case and we made our decisions initially by file. If there was a weapon, there was a star, an asterisk
Count of noncitizens. The other big decision also is promising Major Political implications throughout the country and in washington, of course. The Supreme Court saying the constitution does not allow courts to weigh in on how voting maps are drawn, even in the most extreme cases that give one political advantage over the other. Its called gerrymandering. Well get to it. Cnns Jessica Schneider is outside the Supreme Court. Shes joining me right now. Jessica, lets start with the census decision. It is complicated, important. What are the justices saying here . Reporter the justices are saying that the Citizenship Question on the 2020 census for now is blocked. The Census Bureau cannot move forward at this time with printing those questionnaires that contain a question asking of a respondents citizenship. Thats not to say they cannot indefinitely add the Citizenship Question but it needs to go back to the lower courts for determination. Basically, the Supreme Court in this 54 decision a
In her first year on the bench, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has not been reluctant to offer strong dissents and has advocated a legal concept known as “progressive originalism,” drawing upon a legal doctrine touted by conservativ