Chris Connaker's reminder of « your ignore lists »

[Priaptor]

I suspect that we have very different views about the SCOTUS and its more controversial judgments. Regardless, what is unfortunate in my view, is how politicized appointments to that highest Court have become, as evidenced by the current impasse over the appointment of a replacement for Justice Scalia. If members of the Senate don't want to confirm Obama's nominee, I don't see why they won't do their constitutional duty and just vote accordingly, instead of refusing to do so for purely political reasons. Just my opinion, of course.

 

Yes, it is obvious we have very very different opinions about SCOTUS. I am sure the "more controversial judgements" we believe are controversial are very different so no need to go there. You cite the current impasse as an example because it suits your argument but the reality is these justices are political. They aren't interpreting the Constitution but making law so as long as it is political the appointment process will remain political as it should. You want to go to the originalist perspective where the constitution is interpreted as written and amended then your argument will hold water. During the Roberts confirmation, his famous words were "I will be umpire and just enforce the law" yet he alone rewrote Obamacare, far from his pledge.

 

Jefferson and Madison were very concerned about the justice branch of our government. It didn't take long, namely the end of Adams presidency to start stacking the justice to prolong the Federalists position. Hamilton, as smart as he was and as much as I admire him was naive when it came to SCOTUS. He told Madison no biggie it will never amount to anything. Madison then warned Hamilton how wrong he was and later Jefferson tried to undo it because he was so prescient as to its potential abuse.

[sandyk]

Allan and Jud have probably seen this one too ? (from a C.A. member)

 

Lawyers should never ask a Georgia grandma a question if they aren't prepared for the answer.

 

In a trial, a Southern small-town prosecuting attorney called ...his first witness, a grandmotherly, elderly woman to the stand.

 

He approached her and asked, 'Mrs. Jones, do you know me?'

 

She responded, 'Why, yes, I do know you, Mr. Williams. I've known you since you were a boy, and frankly, you've been a big disappointment to me. You lie, you cheat on your wife, and you manipulate people and talk about them behind their backs. You think you're a big shot when you haven't the brains to realize you'll never amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher.

 

Yes, I know you.’

 

The lawyer was stunned. Not knowing what else to do, he pointed across the room and asked, 'Mrs. Jones, do you know the defense attorney?'

 

She again replied, 'Why yes, I do. I've known Mr. Bradley since he was a youngster, too. He's lazy, bigoted, and he has a drinking problem. He can't build a normal relationship with anyone, and his law practice is one of the worst in the entire state. Not to mention he cheated on his wife with three different women. One of them was your wife. Yes, I know him.'

 

The defense attorney nearly died.

 

The judge asked both counselors to approach the bench and, in a very quiet voice, said, 'If either of you idiots asks her if she knows me, I'll send you both to the electric chair.’

[wwaldmanfan]

Here's another miserable story. I was coming home from a wedding reception in North Jersey one night. It was 2 A.M., and very dark. I was literally the only car on the road as far as I could see. I stopped at a red light, which was marked "No Turn on Red". I waited about 15 seconds, and then decided to turn. Sure enough, I got stopped by a hiding cop. After some discussion, he "gave me a break", and only ticketed me for having a "partially obscured license plate". You know how car dealers mount their logo frame around the tag? Of course, it is perfectly legal, the cop just made it up on the spot, so I would have to fork over some dough.

 

Another time, I got stopped late at night after an affair, the cop said he saw me drinking a martini as I was driving by. A martini! He was 50 yards away. Dead serious.

I insisted he search the car for booze, olives, martini glasses, a cocktai shaker, whatever. He declined because I was obviously stone sober, and all I had was bottled water. Did give me a summons for driving over the speed limit (25 mph on a 6-lane divided road).

 

I know another driver who got stopped for DWB (driving while black) on the same road. He got off, only because he happened to be the county district attorney.

[Allan F]

You want to go to the originalist perspective where the constitution is interpreted as written and amended then your argument will hold water.

Actually, IMO, Justice Scalia's literal originalist approach to the U.S. Constitution, i.e. as the founders would have viewed things, is completely foolish. It allows for no growth or adaptation to changing times and values. In fact, I saw an interview with Justice Scalia in which he stated that, if his interpretation of the Constitution leads to a bad result, that's unfortunate but it's not his fault. I am not alone in my view of Justice Scalia. Three former members of the Supreme Court of Canada expressed similar criticism of his approach when asked to offer comments after he died.

 

One went so far as to to suggest that his approach makes absolutely no sense. By way of analogy of its inflexibility he offered, “Horses used to have the right of way on the road. There came a time when courts thought maybe cars should have the right of way.” Another referred to his "unbelievable parochialsim". Referring to his judicial demeanor, the third stated, “Justice Scalia’s sarcasm and invective did him a great disservice”.

 

l prefer not to further inflame things by referring to specific judgments of Justice Scalia that, IMO, not only border on intellectual dishonesty, but also have resulted in what many consider to be catastrophic consequences.

[AudioDoctor]

I have personally been given a speeding ticket in Virgina, just off the Norfolk Naval Base, for going the grand total of 1mph over the speed limit...

 

My driving privileges are also currently revoked in the state of VA. Its a matter of principle.

 

Lucky for me I have Road America just a few hours away, so I have no need to go to VIR, even though I would like to someday.

[AudioDoctor]

Actually, IMO, Justice Scalia's literal originalist approach to the U.S. Constitution, i.e. as the founders would have viewed things, is completely foolish. It allows for no growth or adaptation to changing times and values. In fact, I saw an interview with Justice Scalia in which he stated that, if his interpretation of the Constitution leads to a bad result, that's unfortunate but it's not his fault. I am not alone in my view of Justice Scalia. Three former members of the Supreme Court of Canada expressed similar criticism of his approach when asked to offer comments after he died.

 

One went so far as to to suggest that his approach makes absolutely no sense. By way of analogy of its inflexibility he offered, “Horses used to have the right of way on the road. There came a time when courts thought maybe cars should have the right of way.” Another referred to his "unbelievable parochialsim". Referring to his judicial demeanor, the third stated, “Justice Scalia’s sarcasm and invective did him a great disservice”.

 

l prefer not to further inflame things by referring to specific judgments of Justice Scalia that, IMO, not only border on intellectual dishonesty, but also have resulted in what many consider to be catastrophic consequences.

 

In my amateur opinion, Justice Scalia, although claiming to be a literal original constitutionalist, was anything but by letting "god" and politics influence his decisions, or bribes, or any of the other things. This will be my last post on the topic or I will get super pissed.

[wgscott]

In my amateur opinion, Justice Scalia, although claiming to be a literal original constitutionalist, was anything but by letting "god" and politics influence his decisions, or bribes, or any of the other things. This will be my last post on the topic or I will get super pissed.

 

You are 100% correct.

[17629]

You're correct that a speeding violation does not require a particular state of mind. A "lesser charge" takes place in the way I mentioned previously, where (unless you're being a dick or it's just too egregious to let go or maybe the cop is having a bad day) the speed that's written on the ticket is usually somewhat less (therefore lesser fine, fewer points on your driving record) than how fast you were actually traveling, the implication being "I've been nice, your life hasn't been unduly complicated, now please don't complicate my life by forcing me to show up in court over this." And if it's serious enough that you challenge it in court, don't know about where you live, but here the magistrates or justices of the peace have a reputation for being willing to take a few mph off (again unless you're a dick, it's too egregious to let go, or the magistrate's having a bad day).

 

 

 

No problem.

 

I was typing fast last night and left out an important factor. I understand that a cop can write you a ticket for a lesser offense on the side of the road when you get pulled over. But in NYC, once the ticket is written, that's it. If you can't beat it outright in court, then you get convicted on whatever the ticket was written for. It can't be reduced to a lower offense. If you're someplace else in NY, you can make a deal. For example, if you are caught speeding 15mph or more over the posted limit, its listed as an 1180B. When you go to court, its very common to reduce the ticket to an 1110A, a much lower offense. But not in NYC.

[firedog]

The whole argument about "strict and original" rulings on the constitution vs. "interpretation" is one big red herring. Both the right wing and the left interpret the constitution, because reality demands it. The Constitution is a set up prinicples which has to be interpreted to have any meaning. Each side gets upset when the interpretation doesn't go their way.

 

However, I'd say the right has a greater level of hypocrisy here, as they constantly talk about literal and orignial and strict interpretation - except when it suits them not to be originalist and strict.

 

See the "Citizens United" case. Supposed strict and originalist judges decided that corporations have the full free speech rights of individuals - despite the fact that corporations aren't mentioned or even hinted at in the Constitution. And yes, I've read all about the ruling and understand that it has a good basis in legal history and legal reasoning. The more right wing justices didn't pull it out of thin air.

Yet it can't be denied that the ruling is far from a strict or originalist interpretation. Yet somehow that doesn't bother the right wingers who constantly criticize judges who are strict constructionists.

[Priaptor]

Actually, IMO, Justice Scalia's literal originalist approach to the U.S. Constitution, i.e. as the founders would have viewed things, is completely foolish. It allows for no growth or adaptation to changing times and values. In fact, I saw an interview with Justice Scalia in which he stated that, if his interpretation of the Constitution leads to a bad result, that's unfortunate but it's not his fault. I am not alone in my view of Justice Scalia. Three former members of the Supreme Court of Canada expressed similar criticism of his approach when asked to offer comments after he died.

 

One went so far as to to suggest that his approach makes absolutely no sense. By way of analogy of its inflexibility he offered, “Horses used to have the right of way on the road. There came a time when courts thought maybe cars should have the right of way.” Another referred to his "unbelievable parochialsim". Referring to his judicial demeanor, the third stated, “Justice Scalia’s sarcasm and invective did him a great disservice”.

 

l prefer not to further inflame things by referring to specific judgments of Justice Scalia that, IMO, not only border on intellectual dishonesty, but also have resulted in what many consider to be catastrophic consequences.

 

Of course I understand you would dislike Scalia while I view him as the prototype of what a Justice should be. I am not sure how many decisions you have read or the insight you have in the complexity of some of these decisions but few in history were as strong and infallible based on the constitution than Scalia.

 

So YOU do believe the court IS political if you believe that they should "interpret" the constitution as they believe, using tortuous logic, to justify it. I believe the Framers were specific, left it be difficult to change the constitution by a method for change which is indeed in there in the form of amendments, which has been used 27 times.

 

No doubt you can find those who disagree with Scalia including three "ultraliberal" and some not too smart Justices. In fact I knew the boyfriend of one of them well, got to meet her many times and she was no brainiac. But I digress. Scalia was 100% right. His job is not to lead to "good results" but to interpret the Constitution as written and amended, nothing more and nothing less. That is their job. If something is "wrong" which is "opinion" in most cases which you denigrated in another post, there are many who will view his decisions as "right". Which is right and which is wrong? Well that is not opinion if you believe that the job of SCOTUS is to evaluate the written document called the Constitution + Amendments as the law of the land as it applies to the cases it hears. Morphing an court opinion based on tortuous logic, making law, absurd precedent, etc was never the intention of a justice and hence why I again say it is ALL political and why your current appointee argument has no legs. In fact our VP endorsed the same thing when he was on the other side of the fence as did so many others.

[Priaptor]

The whole argument about "strict and original" rulings on the constitution vs. "interpretation" is one big red herring. Both the right wing and the left interpret the constitution, because reality demands it. The Constitution is a set up prinicples which has to be interpreted to have any meaning. Each side gets upset when the interpretation doesn't go their way.

 

However, I'd say the right has a greater level of hypocrisy here, as they constantly talk about literal and orignial and strict interpretation - except when it suits them not to be originalist and strict.

 

See the "Citizens United" case. Supposed strict and originalist judges decided that corporations have the full free speech rights of individuals - despite the fact that corporations aren't mentioned or even hinted at in the Constitution. And yes, I've read all about the ruling and understand that it has a good basis in legal history and legal reasoning. The more right wing justices didn't pull it out of thin air.

Yet it can't be denied that the ruling is far from a strict or originalist interpretation. Yet somehow that doesn't bother the right wingers who constantly criticize judges who are strict constructionists.

 

You obviously misstate the Citizens decision to make your invective, yet admit it is based on historic interpretation. You do realize that Corporations are made of American citizens with specific interests, no different than AIPAC, NAACP, ARRP, etc who are freely allowed to lobby and payoff candidates for their own agenda. Trust me there is no dearth of hypocrisy of the left wingers in every thing they do. You do understand that any power not enumerated by the Constitution is left to the states. That was the great compromise. But left winger borderline anarchists believe it is the right of the FEDS to ignore that and allowing them to stack the court with politicians who agree with that perspective just shreds the Constitution to where we are today; namely nothing but garbage.

 

But hey, what me worry.

[Jud]

And over the cliff we go....

[wgscott]

Well, if corporations are actually people, I eagerly await application of the death penalty the next time one is found to be at fault for losing the life of an employee.

[wgscott]

And over the cliff we go....

 

This thread went over the cliff by the end of the first post.

[Jud]

I was typing fast last night and left out an important factor. I understand that a cop can write you a ticket for a lesser offense on the side of the road when you get pulled over. But in NYC, once the ticket is written, that's it. If you can't beat it outright in court, then you get convicted on whatever the ticket was written for. It can't be reduced to a lower offense. If you're someplace else in NY, you can make a deal. For example, if you are caught speeding 15mph or more over the posted limit, its listed as an 1180B. When you go to court, its very common to reduce the ticket to an 1110A, a much lower offense. But not in NYC.

 

Interesting. Wonder why? (I can think of logical reasons. For example: Allowing people to bargain and reach an agreed-upon resolution is usually a way to ensure courts are not clogged. But perhaps so many people tried to do that in NYC it simply became logistically impractical, so no one is permitted to any longer.)

[Jud]

Well, if corporations are actually people, I eagerly await application of the death penalty the next time one is found to be at fault for losing the life of an employee.

 

It would have to be premeditated. Might need a Board of Directors meeting to sign off on it.

[Priaptor]

Well, if corporations are actually people, I eagerly await application of the death penalty the next time one is found to be at fault for losing the life of an employee.

 

You obviously haven't been reading your news. Everyday "individuals" are held accountable for the illegalities of the the corporations they represent. Plus finding "fault for losing the life of an employee" is totally different than an individual killing another purposely with intent. Furthermore, one of the biggest protection schemes for "individuals" in America is to place assets in an LLC. By the logic of many here should they lose their rights?

 

Look I get the point and I truly see both sides. I understand the corruption that it leads to. The point that is being missed by my missive is that those on the left want to choose who does and who does not have access. Seriously, do you think a bloc of voters that hold sway over the Government somehow meets a different moral compass than a corporation? They are both after the same thing and that is to buy influence from the government to further their benefits at others expense. The left and right are both hypocritical in that respect. The left has just done a better job at justifying the "legitimate morality" of one versus the evil of the other.

[mav52]

I have personally been given a speeding ticket in Virgina, just off the Norfolk Naval Base, for going the grand total of 1mph over the speed limit...

 

My driving privileges are also currently revoked in the state of VA. Its a matter of principle.

 

Lucky for me I have Road America just a few hours away, so I have no need to go to VIR, even though I would like to someday.

 

Don't ever drive through VA with a radar detector. eek

[Priaptor]

And over the cliff we go....

 

Wait, its "over the cliff" when it moves "off topic" like discussing something like SCOTUS compared to topic of the merits of speeding tickets.

 

You are all missing the point of the ticketing/fines dilemma. People on this thread have been railing against the cops, which some deserve, when in reality as I have stated before, they are being tasked with the collecting taxes. The whole concept of these arbitrary rules are set by localities and states strictly to raise taxes and they send out these kids in a uniform to collect them. Since the greatest number of encounters between police and citizens will be in the form of collecting these underhanded taxes you may just encounter situations you never asked for, which is what the ticketing debate since to be about. Again, blame the lawmakers, not the pawns sent out to collect these underhanded taxes.

[PopPop]

In my opinion speed regulations serve an important public service and I fully support their enforcement.

[Priaptor]

In my opinion speed regulations serve an important public service and I fully support their enforcement.

 

Pretty broad statement with minimal (real stats) to back it up. First, it depends upon THE WHERE you are talking about, the most important variable. Second it depends upon the speed, within THE WHERE, the second most important variable. The variables go on and on. Most "speed regulations" serve no purpose other than to generate the proverbial "governmental revenue" and nothing more.

[PopPop]

OK, we disagree.

[Jud]

I imagine though, it must be more than a tad unpleasant for you when defending to the best of your ability, somebody that you know for certain is as guilty as hell?

 

I haven't done more than a couple of cases involving criminal law in my career, and those were a couple of traffic offenses for people who came to the firm I worked for at the time on other matters. I was therefore never confronted with the situation you describe.

 

There are ethical rules that govern how an attorney must conduct him- or herself in the context of criminal defense work, including the rule that one must never mislead the tribunal. Note that there may be other issues involved as important or even more important than guilt or innocence. There is the following famous quote from an opinion by US Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter:

 

It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.

[Priaptor]

OK, we disagree.

 

I would bet we agree more than you think. In the broad general sense, we probably disagree. In the reasonable and logical sense, we probably agree.

[Priaptor]

I haven't done more than a couple of cases involving criminal law in my career, and those were a couple of traffic offenses for people who came to the firm I worked for at the time on other matters. I was therefore never confronted with the situation you describe.

 

There are ethical rules that govern how an attorney must conduct him- or herself in the context of criminal defense work, including the rule that one must never mislead the tribunal. Note that there may be other issues involved as important or even more important than guilt or innocence. There is the following famous quote from an opinion by US Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter:

 

Wow, you picked one of the more interesting Justices to quote. Kudos.