[MeanWestTexan]

Duh.

The fact that this was even a question is an example of how out-of-control MADD is.

[rhombus]

I have mixed feelings about this ruling. Of course I agree MADD is out of control and ridiculous. But I have to ask, is it the job of the Supreme Court to decide what is “right” or whether or not what a legislative body does is unconstitutional. When I saw Alito and Thomas dissenting I had to think very hard about this... even though I am initially pleased with the ruling.

[Always Right]

Some states have lowered the DUI level so low that one glass of wine at dinner could make a person guilty.

[Living Free in NH]

If DUI isn't a felony, but running over someone while driving drunk is, does that mean attempted armed robbery isn't a felony unless someone gets shot?

I was trying to be sarcastic but they seem related...

[Thombo2]

Been through the process here in Fla back in Dec 88.Nailed comming home from a post X-mas/pre-newyears party.My info is dated,but a DUI is(was?)considered a felony if the alcohol level was at least 2x the legal limit or it was a second DUI w/in a set period of time.The problem is individuals who continue to drive drunk after one or more DUI’s.I don’t understand the mentality.These are the folks who eventually kill themselves and/or others driving drunk.No license?No insurance?No problem.Quite frankly i was humbled by the experience:court,comm service,fines,etc.But by the grace of God i haven’t had a drink since Jan 4,1989.

[Sender]

As dangerous and neglectful as DUI is, it is arguably not a "violent", purposeful crime. I think the Court ruled reasonably on this one.

We must preserve the distinction between one who willfully commits a violent act and one who unintentionally does harm, even through great stupidity.

[Darren McCarty]

Breyer, Roberts, Ginsburg, Stevens, Kennedy had the original. Scalia concurred (doesn't go as far as court, but can not condemn a man to 15 years in prison). Alito, Souter, Thomas dissented.

It's based on statutory reasoning more than anything else. The opinion was on a narrow definition of "violent felony." The dissent was on deference to the state's definition. Scalia was somewhere in between.

I'm torn on this one. To me, violent felony is based on the old terms before it was expanded. Felony used to mean the major crimes - murder, rape, armed robbery, etc. Now it's been expanded to include sometimes even carrying a concealed knife over 3 inches. But the dissent has a good point here too. We have legislators for a reason. The punishment doesn't fit the crime, however. I'm with Scalia on this.