|
Authored by: alisonken1 on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 09:44 AM EDT |
Quick summary in title: Kerrections -> Corrections
Then any extra info like where it's at or any commentary in
the comments box
---
- Ken -
import std_disclaimer.py
Registered Linux user^W^WJohn Doe #296561
Slackin' since 1993
http://www.slackware.com
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 10:00 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 10:01 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Are Human's DNA/Genes changing dynamically, not static (like bees & monkeys)? Is memory binary? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 10:43 AM EDT
- Attitudes to copying and shared culture - Authored by: sciamiko on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 10:51 AM EDT
- Canada - HIV disclosure can be waived under certain conditions - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 12:58 PM EDT
- CryptoParty Handbook - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 01:13 PM EDT
- U.S. Supreme Court to review Monsanto seed patents - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 05:26 PM EDT
- Google: That Thing We Said About Manually Reviewing Borderline YouTube Takedowns? We Didn't Mean - Authored by: artp on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 10:40 PM EDT
- 9th Circuit Upholds Prelim. Injunction in Microsoft v. Motorola - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 06 2012 @ 06:51 AM EDT
- Abu Hamza vs. Julian Assange? - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Saturday, October 06 2012 @ 06:56 AM EDT
- Chromebook: your next PC? - Authored by: Gringo_ on Saturday, October 06 2012 @ 10:03 AM EDT
- Looks like nobody wants a Windows phone - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 06 2012 @ 11:55 AM EDT
- Your tax dollars at work: local cops now paid with federal money to troll IRC - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 06 2012 @ 02:12 PM EDT
- Charlie Brown v. Lucy van Pelt? - Reddit comment - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 06 2012 @ 06:04 PM EDT
- Spectacular view in the Australian Outback - Authored by: Gringo_ on Saturday, October 06 2012 @ 11:50 PM EDT
- Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons -- Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 07 2012 @ 05:31 AM EDT
|
Authored by: feldegast on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 10:02 AM EDT |
Thank you for your support
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 10:46 AM EDT |
Quoth PJ "Voting in judges, therefore, is probably the very
last way you want to put them into office, frankly, as
retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been
trying to tell the country for a couple of years now."
OK, but what exactly is the alternative? Judges appointed
by politicians, who are themselves chosen by voters? The
Supreme Court is appointed, not voted, but we have a highly
politicized high court, and the balance swings suddenly
(whoever is in office when a justice dies or retires). You
also get the inefficiency of judges who know they're not
still up to it staying on to wait for an ideallogically
aligned president to be replaced.
Plus, voting allows bad judges to be removed, and there are
bad judges out there (witness the "screw you, Supreme
Court!" attitude of a disturbing percentage of the Federal
Circuit.
What I'd really like to see (in an ideal world) is a peer-
reviewed selection of judges based on fairness and knowledge
of the law. I'd also like to catch a leprechaun.
Don't get me wrong - I agree judge election is a step
towards majoritarianism. I just don't see a realistic
apolitical alternative that will realistically produce
materially better judges. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Alternatives to judge voting? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 10:49 AM EDT
- Alternatives to judge voting? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 11:11 AM EDT
- Alternatives to judge voting? - Authored by: davecb on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 12:01 PM EDT
- Federal Judges are not elected. - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 01:40 PM EDT
- Alternatives to judge voting? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 02:16 PM EDT
- Politics and court separate - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 03:06 PM EDT
- Alternatives to judge voting? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 03:34 PM EDT
- Alternatives to judge voting. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 03:49 PM EDT
- Missouri Plan - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 05:44 PM EDT
- Missouri Plan - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 06:22 PM EDT
- Alternatives to judge voting? - Authored by: albert on Saturday, October 06 2012 @ 12:38 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 11:00 AM EDT |
I believe that very sad day already came. It is very evident
that true respect for laws and the court system has gone by
the wayside. The lesser people are constantly being thrown
under the chariot wheels of the wealthy and powerful for the
sake of money and property to be gained.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jpvlsmv on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 11:15 AM EDT |
Can you really say "Everything that was decided against us was wrong, so we
appeal all of that"?
If you can, then what does it mean to fail to preserve an issue for appeal?
Wouldn't every lawyer just add that boilerplate into every appeal just in case?
It doesn't seem to help narrow down the issues that the appeals court would need
to decide, does it? At the very least, shouldn't the appellant be required to
list the specific decisions?
--Joe[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dobbo on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 11:55 AM EDT |
If the US wanted to be different why did it base it's
legal system so much
on English law?
I remember at the start of Bill Clinton's trial that is
lawyers quoted to articles of English Common Law in this
opening
remarks.
The influence of the Magna Carta on the US
Constitution and the Bill of Rights is clear:
Article 21 from the
Declaration of Rights in the
Maryland Constitution of 1776 reads:
"That no
freeman ought to be taken, or imprisoned, or
disseized of his freehold,
liberties, or privileges, or
outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed,
or deprived
of his life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of
his
peers, or by the law of the land."
One of the key points
of the Magna Carta was "The
right to due process which led to Trial by
Jury".
The Magna Carta is the first document I know of where the
absolute
ruling monarch was brought under the law.
Let's not forget that the
Magna Carta was signed by King
John in 1215, while the Americas were not
discovered until
1492. The USA did not appear with new laws and
morals
from
nowhere. The ideas were being expressed in England and
across Europe for
long before the War of Independence. It
is the advantage of a new country that
one can cheery pick
the best ideas from where ever they have sprung. France did
much the same after its revolution, at least to my English
eyes. Ideas that
were well know within the Palace of
Versailles.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Yossarian on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 03:30 PM EDT |
Intents are very nice, but results are more important.
For example, if the government wants to confiscate the little
guy's land, under Eminent Domain, so a rich guy will make a
better use of it, then the courts say, loud and clear, "YES!".
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
The Founding Fathers may had different ideas when they wrote
the Fifth, but the Supreme Court is there to protect the rich
developer from the little property owner.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 06 2012 @ 08:27 PM EDT |
Voting in judges, therefore, is probably the very last way you want
to put them into office, frankly, as
retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor has been
trying to tell the country for a couple of years
now.
She is right you know. Why you never know when the great
unwashed without the advantage of finely honed gnostic tortuous legal logic may
have to relay upon common sense to sort an issue out or elect a good man or
woman into office. Why those dunces never have could seen the
eligibly of mathematics under the penumbra of patent law. And imagine how boring
our lives would be if "is" just meant "is."
Quis custodiet ipsos
custodes? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 07 2012 @ 07:08 AM EDT |
Any idea when new users can be created again? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: yacc on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 11:47 PM EDT |
Divided 4-4 rulings don't have the same impact as true majority decisions as
they don't set a nationwide precedent.
Meaning that is has been only already decided for Omega watches, probably not
even other watches.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|