Waiting for Fitzgerald

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/15/D8CL34SO7.html

[Arnold terminates junk food]

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

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Captain
Now that we have gotten rid of the exclusion rule and sovereign immunity, what else is wrong with the constitution as currently interpretted? What should the founders have done differently?
.

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

[Spanky]

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

. [/size]

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.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
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.

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.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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

[Captain]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Lifetime appointments for S. Ct. justices.

Limit them to 18 years. Stagger the terms so every president gets 2 picks (or should). Avoids incentives to appoint young people who stick around forever; prevents people from hanging on forever; gives presidents and senate a fairly frequent opportunity to have some influence on the court's makeup (not at random intervals either). No concern that they'll kowtow to litigants to ensure a post-judging job, since most will be at retirement age anyway.

Also, while we're amending (and we might not need an amendment to do this), I would create a provision that, whenever a justice is recused, the chief judge from one of the circuits (other than the Fed. Cir. and the one from which the case arises) is selected (perhaps by lot) to sit as an acting justice for that case only.

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.

[Captain]

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

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

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And I disagree that it's a better incentive.



So an already strapped PD looses additional funds? That seems to me to be an inopposite result. And I don't think it's "criminals" that are benefitting. I think all of us benefit by making sure the G doesn't run ruff-shot over our civil rights.

Wow. There is hope.


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

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Captain
I like the first idea; of course, it would require that the constitution also set the size of the court..

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

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

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

yea,"harder" is a nice understatement.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes but a huge part of it. And the media played it up for all that it was worth. How many shows have you seen where the main tension and drama in the show is provided by the fact that some guilty guy is going free because of the exclusioniary rule. It happens in almsot every cop movie, (Clint Eastwood, Chuck Norris, Steven Seagall, Law and Order). That was the entire plot of the Star Chamber.

I think once the rule was dropped it would restore an unprecedented amount of confidence in the Judicial system.

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.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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

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".

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Wow. There is hope.


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

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.