First, as Wikipedia editor, I edited or contributed the jurisprudence section (the twin cases are landmark suits in USA money laundering case law history since 1970 and 1986 enactment of the statute; for sure, CJS and AmJur would copy paste these Scalia and Thomas babies in their SPAM volumes)
Money laundering: Revision history - Wikipedia
Second, since this is the first USA S.C. case (if I am not mistaken) on the statute since 1986, then, it is usual for magistrates to be split or highly divided in their rulings / votes; split decisions are common in many countries;
Here in the Philippines, we have had, since 1901, several split judgments (Justice Black said that hard cases like long cases, make bad law);
take for example the current Philippine National Broadband Network controversy NBN–ZTE deal corruption scandal - Wikipedia
In a 9-6 closely decided ZTE case, our Supreme Court shocked the Filipino nation, by making mockery of justice for the sake of our fake President (who appointed, since 2001, almost all of our incumbent Justices who voted)
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643.htm ( ROMULO L. NERI vs. SENATE COMMITTEE, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008)
Third, our AMLA or anti-money laundering law, is different from USA’s, so I cannot scholarly dissect the USA decision:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/topofthehour.aspx?StoryId=120473
Since 2001, when the Anti-Money Laundering Act was first enacted, the country has registered significant gains in the campaign against money laundering and terrorist financing. In 2003, the law was amended to comply with international standards. A report by the Anti-Money Laundering Council, which is implementing the AMLA, showed that total amounts frozen since the campaign began has reached P1.371 billion, based on 12,038 suspicious transaction reports (STRs) received from 2001 to present.
Fourth, even in CA, the gay marriage ruling was split 4-3 homo-lesbian ponencia
[B]Ruling is not yet final until 30 days - The dwaves ruled -
[/B]Lest non-lawyers readers be misled, the court decision 4-3, is not yet final, since it is highly divided, and one vote can change. So, under CA rules, an appeal or motion can be filed withing 30 days to stay it, and after May 15, as of now, no marriage can still be held pending the finality. Besides the November ballot might reverse or avoid this ruling by Constitutional amendment. I am a lawyer/judge, and our Philippine laws were copied from California federal rules of service. I repeat, just one vote can can change the 4-3 judgment. So I added this: Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that reversed interracial marriages ban, the Republican-dominated California Supreme Court, (in a 4-3 ruling, penned by Chief Justice Ronald George) struck down California’s 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law and a similar voter-approved 2000 law (passed with 61%). The judgment is not final, for the ruling can be reconsidered upon filing of appeal or motion within 30 days, as the Advocates for Faith and Freedom and the Alliance Defense Fund, inter aila, stated they would ask for a stay of the ruling. If the court denies the plea, same-sex couples could start getting married in 30 days. The 2006 census figures indicate that, California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households.news.yahoo.com, California’s top court legalizes gay marriage Same-sex marriage opponents announced, however, that they gathered 1 million signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to define marriage as between a man and woman, to effectively annul the decision.nytimes.com, Gay Couples Rejoice at Ruling --Florentino floro (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
A final note. As a lawyer / dwarf judge, let me caution yeah, that, in many civilized courts, more often than not, dissenting opinions, would, IN TIME, be the majority. In layman’s term - the Scalia - Thomas (9-0; 5-4) June 2, 2008 judgments for defendants, which narrowed the application of the 1986 statute against the whims and caprices of department of justice prosecutors, may, in the future, be abandoned in favor of the prosecutors’ argument / dissenting opinions, and would be the new case law.
At any rate, instead of reading the forum and silly rants / ramblings of non-magical legal luminaries in spam blogs, please read the mentally sane dissents of the other lucid Justices, the full opinions, if you have TIME, and let your laundries be taken cared of by …
Be careful, I am not telling yeah, that, like here in the Philippines -
(we have 15 S.C. Justices, and most of them got 76% - 81% Bar Exams Rating, except Justices Velasco, 87.+%, Carpio, 87.55% - TIE with myself, since I got also 87.55%, Quisumbing, 85%)
Supreme Court Decisions (USA, UK, etc.) are written really by alters, or top University / Honor grads, hired by them as attorneys/ staff,
remember the mental sanity cases of Justices Black, Douglas, etc. (who were dying, with history of lingering illnesses and suicides) and it was only decades after their deaths, that journalists, and retards, discovered that -
USA decisions are written by staff. PERIOD.
I am looking for the Manila Times and good photographer for yeah.