I Love This Idea
 

I guess McDonald's won't be selling any Happy Meal toys for Terminator 4.

Just for Fun
 

They shouldn't have punted the slavery issue for 20 years - to name one.

Penalizing the Cops
 

I have always found this a ridiculous idea. We will never have control over Hollywood. Making Hollywood change should never be considered an option because it really isn't one. We can ask them to change, but never force them to change.

Penalizing the Cops
 

Of course not. I'm just saying that your suggestion that Dirty Harry movies illustrate how bad the exclusionary rule is does little to tell me about the actual state of affairs with the exclusionary rule and more to tell me that you get your info on law enforcement from bad cop movies.

The point of the CLE wasn't to ask Hollywood to change. It was to illustrate that we as lawyers have a huge task of educating our clients on what is and is ethical since our clients are likely to have very bad information on legal ethics because of what they see in the movies.

Penalizing the Cops
 

Didn't you say this:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Or maybe Hollywood could be a little less sensational in its portrayal of the judicial system?

. [/size]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't read your mind. Only read what you write.

Penalizing the Cops
 

Try reading this:

Definition: Rhetorical Question

A rhetorical question is one that requires no answer because the answer is obvious and doesn't need to be stated . The speaker (of the rhetorical question) is not looking for an answer but is making some kind of a point, as in an argument.

http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary...-question.html

Just for Fun
 

I like the first idea; of course, it would require that the constitution also set the size of the court. I believe some states have very lengthy terms like this, but am not sure how it works out.

I think the framers were very wary of setting too much detail about the court in stone. The Supreme Court was, after all, one of the bigger experiments in the new Republic. There are very few models for the Supreme Court, and some of the ideas, like lifetime appointments, were reforms people had been clamoring for over many years.

It might have been useful to have a mandatory "revisit" of the experiment after thirty or forty years, in which case it wouldn't surprise me at all to have seen a change like an 18 year term.
But then, they may well have had little idea of just how reluctant we'd all be to change the document.

I'm not sure the second idea belongs in the Constitution. Perhaps just a clause enabling the Court to develop its own mechanism for dealing with recusals and absences.

Just for Fun
 

The issue probably got harder to address over time as slavery became more important in the South and was abolished in the north.

Penalizing the Cops
 

Wow. There is hope.


(You've used that response to me, and now right back at ya'.)

Just for Fun
 

Not necessarily, although 18 years certainly was selected in light of the current number of nine, and teh stagger wouldn't work so well if the number were larger.

What if the amendment to Article III simply said "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good Behaviour, except that Congress shall have the power to fix a maximum term of service for judges of the supreme Court, . . .

The staggering will never be perfect because inevitably a justice will die before the term is up.

Anyway, Congress could set the length at whatever it pleases. (one could also include in the amendment a provision "maximum term of service, but not less than 18 years, for judges

Just for Fun
 

yea,"harder" is a nice understatement.

Penalizing the Cops
 

I think you sound less ridiculous when you rely on your "for Dummies" collection than when you rely on Chuck Norris movies.

I admit that this is a tough call.

Penalizing the Cops
 

I think you sound less ridiculous when you rely on your "for Dummies" collection or on Chuck Norris movies than when you rely on your overly literal manner of interpreting posts.

This one is not a tough call.

Just for Fun
 

I think the "not less than 18" is better than letting Congress play with the terms of the Judges. The founders were familiar with the King and Parliament playing games with Judicial appointments, and Congress always could take a court they don't like and just say "times up".

Penalizing the Cops
 

I never have gotten enough credit here for my consistentcy with respect to civil rights. Most of you poo poo me because of the economic side, but I doubt you will find someone that backs personal liberties more whole heartedly than I.