Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

5th Circuit Court Finds SEC Enforcement Unconstitutional [pdf]

ca5.uscourts.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 191 posts

Re: 5th Circuit Court Finds SEC Enforcement Unconstitutional [pdf]

#111

Post by vkou »

rayiner wrote: post #17

The gist of the decision is that the SEC’s imposition of civil penalties and disgorgement violated defendants’ seventh amendment right to a jury trial. Under the seventh amendment, you have a right to a jury trial for any claim that would have been an action at law in the courts of England at the time of the founding, prior to the merger of law and equity.[1] There is an additional principle that so called “public ri…

> The gist of the decision is that the SEC’s imposition of civil penalties and disgorgement violated defendants’ seventh amendment right to a jury trial

If being tried by a jury is so necessary for justice, how is it that ~95% of people currently imprisoned in this country have never faced a jury trial?

The answer is obvious - actually having jury trials for everyone would grind the country to a halt, so for the majority of us, this sort of right only exists in theory.

But you'll never hear the 5th circuit saying a word on that subject.

In a just world, this new development should mirror how jury trials work for the rest of us - anyone demanding a jury trial to avoid regulatory censure should be subjected to such horrific penalties if they lose, that nobody in their right mind would ever choose that option. Sadly, we do not live in a just world.

Re: 5th Circuit Court Finds SEC Enforcement Unconstitutional [pdf]

#112

Post by mistrial9 »

snowwrestler wrote: post #46
rayiner wrote: post #17

The gist of the decision is that the SEC’s imposition of civil penalties and disgorgement violated defendants’ seventh amendment right to a jury trial. Under the seventh amendment, you have a right to a jury trial for any claim that would have been an action at law in the courts of England at the time of the founding, prior to the merger of law and equity.[1] There is an additional principle that so called “public ri…

It will be very interesting to see what happens if SCOTUS tries to roll back the administrative state, because this is how Congress wants things to work. They passed all those laws to create the agencies, after all. And the expanding administrative state is what has allowed members of Congress to do less and less actual work, and more and more performance art and fundraising. They barely even have to pass budgets any…

IANL a quick look here [0] does say that court case United States v. Wonson (1812) established the historical test, which interpreted the amendment as relying on English common law to determine whether a jury trial was necessary in a civil suit; around the same time as the War of 1812.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_Unite...

Re: 5th Circuit Court Finds SEC Enforcement Unconstitutional [pdf]

#113

Post by xyzzyz »

vkou wrote: post #74
xyzzyz wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On a basic level this seems to make sense but the practical application of this would mean that legislators would need to explicitly pass legislation anytime a regulatory body needs to address a specific issue or regulate some behavior Yeah, can you imagine the horror of making the congressmen actually do their job and pass the laws, instead of delegating all their authority to unelected, nameless, and effectively…

> Yeah, can you imagine the horror of making the congressmen actually do their job and pass the laws, instead of delegating all their authority to unelected, nameless, and effectively unaccountable bureaucrats 1. Those bureaucrats are appointed by the President, whom you vote for, and by Congress, whom you vote for, and may be fired by the former. If you don't like what the executive branch of the government looks li…

> Those bureaucrats are appointed by the President, whom you vote for, and by Congress, whom you vote for, and may be fired by the former.

I wish this was the case, but it is not: only a minuscule fraction of government bureaucrats is politically appointed. The people actually drafting the million pages of administrative regulations are overwhelmingly career bureaucrats, who are effectively unfireable.

> 2. In 2022, I wouldn't hold my breath for congress to pass any laws

The Congress does pass some laws, for things it cares about and where there is a broad agreement as to what the law should be. If the elected representative cannot get enough votes to pass a law, it most likely means that the law is not that important, or that there is no agreement on what it should be.

Re: 5th Circuit Court Finds SEC Enforcement Unconstitutional [pdf]

#114

Post by koolba »

muglug wrote: post #110
bayareabadboy wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Processes were included to amend the constitution for this exact reason! Of course the framers knew that it was a flawed document.

[flagged]

Yes it s a great system because foundational change requires a super majority of consensus across multiple political lines. Not just a mob showing up with pitch forks demanding the flavor of the week.

Re: 5th Circuit Court Finds SEC Enforcement Unconstitutional [pdf]

#115

Post by xyzzyz »

vannevar wrote: post #86
snowwrestler wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will be very interesting to see what happens if SCOTUS tries to roll back the administrative state, because this is how Congress wants things to work. They passed all those laws to create the agencies, after all. And the expanding administrative state is what has allowed members of Congress to do less and less actual work, and more and more performance art and fundraising. They barely even have to pass budgets any…

>It will be very interesting to see what happens if SCOTUS tries to roll back the administrative state... "Interesting" to say the least. Trying to govern a modern nation of 370 million people based on a literal 18th-century interpretation of a Constitution designed to govern a handful of former colonies is going to be a (very predictable) disaster, which is why the Court hasn't done it before.

This country became a world superpower with 100 million residents before it got any of the modern administrative state.

Re: 5th Circuit Court Finds SEC Enforcement Unconstitutional [pdf]

#116

Post by krsrhe »

snowwrestler wrote: post #73
woodruffw wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The practical answer is that every country needs a body of law to "bootstrap" with, and English common and case law isn't the worst place to start.

Sure our forefathers needed some bootstraps, but we’re coming up on 250 years of independence here.

No post body was provided.

Re: 5th Circuit Court Finds SEC Enforcement Unconstitutional [pdf]

#117

Post by xyzzyz »

vkou wrote: post #111
rayiner wrote: post #17

The gist of the decision is that the SEC’s imposition of civil penalties and disgorgement violated defendants’ seventh amendment right to a jury trial. Under the seventh amendment, you have a right to a jury trial for any claim that would have been an action at law in the courts of England at the time of the founding, prior to the merger of law and equity.[1] There is an additional principle that so called “public ri…

> The gist of the decision is that the SEC’s imposition of civil penalties and disgorgement violated defendants’ seventh amendment right to a jury trial If being tried by a jury is so necessary for justice, how is it that ~95% of people currently imprisoned in this country have never faced a jury trial? The answer is obvious - actually having jury trials for everyone would grind the country to a halt, so for the majo…

I don’t like it either that the right to jury trial is overwhelmingly bargained away, but having the right and bargaining it away is still preferable to not have any right in the first place.

Re: 5th Circuit Court Finds SEC Enforcement Unconstitutional [pdf]

#118

Post by krsrhe »

vkou wrote: post #111
rayiner wrote: post #17

The gist of the decision is that the SEC’s imposition of civil penalties and disgorgement violated defendants’ seventh amendment right to a jury trial. Under the seventh amendment, you have a right to a jury trial for any claim that would have been an action at law in the courts of England at the time of the founding, prior to the merger of law and equity.[1] There is an additional principle that so called “public ri…

> The gist of the decision is that the SEC’s imposition of civil penalties and disgorgement violated defendants’ seventh amendment right to a jury trial If being tried by a jury is so necessary for justice, how is it that ~95% of people currently imprisoned in this country have never faced a jury trial? The answer is obvious - actually having jury trials for everyone would grind the country to a halt, so for the majo…

No post body was provided.

Re: 5th Circuit Court Finds SEC Enforcement Unconstitutional [pdf]

#119

Post by remarkEon »

vkou wrote: post #111
rayiner wrote: post #17

The gist of the decision is that the SEC’s imposition of civil penalties and disgorgement violated defendants’ seventh amendment right to a jury trial. Under the seventh amendment, you have a right to a jury trial for any claim that would have been an action at law in the courts of England at the time of the founding, prior to the merger of law and equity.[1] There is an additional principle that so called “public ri…

> The gist of the decision is that the SEC’s imposition of civil penalties and disgorgement violated defendants’ seventh amendment right to a jury trial If being tried by a jury is so necessary for justice, how is it that ~95% of people currently imprisoned in this country have never faced a jury trial? The answer is obvious - actually having jury trials for everyone would grind the country to a halt, so for the majo…

I don't know where you got that statistic, but regardless of how true it is, I suspect the reason so many are imprisoned without having a jury trial is that they waived that right[1] and took a plea deal.

>In a just world, this new development should mirror how jury trials work for the rest of us - anyone demanding a jury trial to avoid regulatory censure should be subjected to such horrific penalties if they lose, that nobody in their right mind would ever choose that option. Sadly, we do not live in a just world.

I'm assuming this is sarcasm because you're describing a Lovecraftian bureaucratic horror-show.

[1] I'm sidestepping the reason for why this might be so common, which likely has to do with the lack of public defenders and high caseloads though I don't have actual data that supports this.

Re: 5th Circuit Court Finds SEC Enforcement Unconstitutional [pdf]

#120

Post by _moof »

xyzzyz wrote: post #59
linkjuice4all wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I dislike poorly written laws (including those that work around some failing of our current "state" of government) and judges lacking accountability - this seems to be in the same league as the EPA Regulator Case[0] that's sitting at the Supreme Court right now. The end-goal doesn't appear to be justice for the aggrieved party but more so the elimination of agency-issued oversight. The jurisprudence seems to fo…

> On a basic level this seems to make sense but the practical application of this would mean that legislators would need to explicitly pass legislation anytime a regulatory body needs to address a specific issue or regulate some behavior Yeah, can you imagine the horror of making the congressmen actually do their job and pass the laws, instead of delegating all their authority to unelected, nameless, and effectively…

> Yeah, can you imagine the horror of making the congressmen actually do their job and pass the laws, instead of delegating all their authority to unelected, nameless, and effectively unaccountable bureaucrats

As someone subject to a significant body of federal regulation on a technical subject, I would absolutely prefer to have those rules in the hands of the level-headed experts who currently control them rather than a bunch of loud-mouthed politicians - politicians who would still have to gun for votes every N years, and wouldn't bat an eye at doing so by turning technical rules they don't understand into culture war fodder. No thanks.

Post reply on HN