Powells pivotal vote in the case. Indeed, that reasoning flouted precedent at the time and has since been relegated to nothing more than an isolated relic of an abandoned doctrine. The states only defense in support of the judgment below is that the sixth amendment does not require unanimity at all, that is hnot in state courts or federal court. This court should reject that argument. As the court has said many times over many decades, the sixth amendment requires a unanimous verdict to convict. In particular, what the court has said is the sixth amendment right to try by jury carries with it the essentials of the common law. The common law authorities are uniform, explicit, and absolute. Unanimity is an absolute requirement to trial by jury. The reasons that the common law commentators gave for that rule resonate just as powerfully now as they did then. In a nutshell, were not prepared to take away somebody ice liberty unless a Cross Section of the community uniformly agrees criminal
G. R. Funeral homes versus the equal Employment Opportunity commission. Mr. Cole . Mr. Chief justice, may it please the court, Aimee Stephens is a transgender woman, a valued employee for six years until she told her boss she was going to live and identify as a woman. When harris homes responded by firing her it discriminated against her because of her sex for three reasons, first in firing her for failing to conform to its owners explicitly stated stereotypes about how men and women should behave, it discriminated against her in the same way that Price Waterhouse discriminated against ann hopkins for failing to walk and talk more femininely. It cant be that ann hopkins would lose her case on the same facts were she transgender. Second, Harris Holmes fired her for identifying as a woman only because she was assigned a male sex at birth. In doing so, it fired her for controvening only people assigned a male sex at birth namely that they live as a male their entire lives. Second, fired f
Stereotypes about how men and women should behave. It discriminates against her the same way as Price Waterhouse discriminated against and hopkins for failing to walk and talk more feminine league. And hopkins that would lose her case on the same facts. Second, harris fired her for identifying as a woman only because she was assigned male sex at birth. In doing so they fired her for contravening a sex specific expectation that applies only to people assigned male sex at birth. They live and identify as a man for their entire lives. Is mistreatment on the basis of sex. Harris fired her for changing her sex, that is discrimination the same way firing someone for changing their religion would be religious dissemination. Harris would fire transgender men for being insufficiently feminine and transgender women for being insufficiently mass killing is as the government conceives none of these arguments ask the court to redefine or update sex. Minimum sex a assigned at birth based on physical
Number 186135, kahler versus kansas. For centuries criminal culpability has hinged on the capacity for moral judgment, to discern and choose between right and wrong. The insane lack that capacity. This understanding of insanity has persisted since the 1500s and remains the rule in 48 jurisdictions. It runs afoul over the 14th and eighth amendment. Kansas rewrite history and two ways. First by elevating a test that was never used in this country and only rarely in england and secondly by conflating commonlaw intent which required a vicious will and bound up in moral capacity. What applies today . A morality free, kansas uproots the deeply rooted by eliminating any method to assess whether defendants capacity for moral judgment was intact or irretrievably compromised by Mental Illness. I would like to turn to do process and explain why the moral capacity notion is or has been fundamental in our system. The model penal code is an excellent example. Is criminal law eve all the drafters mov
Last term in timbs against indiana this court reaffirmed the wellsettled rule that Incorporated Provisions of the bill of rights apply the same way to the states as they apply to the federal government. Taking that rule as they given, the state does not defend Justice Powell pivotal vote in the apodaca case. That we shouldnt flouted president at the time and is simply relegated to nothing more than isolated relic of an abandon doctrine. The states only defense in support of the judgment below is the sixth amendment does not require unanimity at all. That is not sick courts or in federal courts. This court should redact that argument because a court has said many times over many decades sixth amendment requires unanimous verdict to convict. In particular what the court has said is the sixth amendment right to trial by jury carries with it the essential common law and the, authorities are uniform, explicit, and absolute. Unanimity is an absolute requirement to trial by jury. The reasons