Ashcroft and the "blacklisting" of judges

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sayhey, Aug 10, 2003.

  1. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    #1
  2. macrumors 65816

    Ambrose Chapel

    #2
    this from a man who lost an election to his deceased opponent...

    here's hoping we get more mandatory minimum sentences for first time drug offenders!!
     
  3. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    #3
    Re: Ashcroft and the "blacklisting" of judges

    Read it? He practically wrote it!
     
  4. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    #4
    i like how the administration that championed states' rights in the election feels free to intimidate from the federal level.
     
  5. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    #5
    Oh, that's the NY Times. You can't believe anything they say anymore.

    (Just saving the counterpoint folks the trouble)
     
  6. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    #6
    justice kennedy had something to say about it:

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=6&u=/nm/crime_lawyers_dc
     
  7. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    #7
    They proved their situational ethics from the very beginning with the challenge of Florida's Supreme Court's jurisdiction in Bush v. Gore.

    Ashcroft seems the perfect man for the job as he seems unbothered by any constitutional questions about our civil liberties under the guise of fighting terror. Here the presumption is that the prosecutor always know best. We have a folding together of the role of prosecuting attorney and judge. The idea of impartial justice is almost forgotten.
     
  8. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    #8
    Florida was a federal issue because it was a State Supreme Court legislating from the bench. Nothing more.

    As for impartial justice. Doesn't exist any longer. Because attorney's, and judges have become political entities. They judge off of their ideals instead of the law.
     
  9. macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    #9
    well of course they judge off their ideas...what exactly would a judge do if not interpret the seriousness of a crime and it's proper penalty.

    proposing we take the human capacity for reason out of the sentencing process is just stupid. it belittles the intuitive powers we possess and makes a mockery of our judicial system. the fact that there is a guideline of "recommeded" sentences demonstrates that the process MUST be interpreted based upon the severity of the crime.

    if a judge feels the punishment is less(or more) than the federal guidelines...than so be it.

    now, if we could only get rid of those pesky juries...:rolleyes:
     
  10. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    #10
    We can of course rehash the 2000 election all over again, but my point was to point out the contradiction in the viewpoints of Bush and his administration from day one. After a lifetime of shouting "states rights" the Bush campaign jumped to the Federal Courts to try and outflank what they rightly or wrongly thought was a unfavorable State Court. It didn't seem they were too committed to the principle of state jurisdiction when they thought they might lose.

    As to attorneys and judges becoming political entities, I'd say they always have been. The point is to have a balance of power where the prosecution doesn't hold all the cards.
     
  11. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    #11
    the prosecutor's job is to get a conviction, not see that justice has been served. i know a DA. her attitude is "even if person X is not guilty of this crime, he's guilty for something, so i'm gonna nail him."

    she says that attitude is widespread in her office.
     
  12. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    #12
    A prosecutor is supposed to temper that zeal for conviction with a committment to justice. I'm sure you agree, the attitude you describe is all the more reason to have judges who are not intimidated by Ashcroft or anyone else at the prosecutor's table.
     
  13. macrumors 6502

    #13
    You joke, but in the UK Blair and his legal buddies are proposing just that - trial without jury. Initially they say, only in cases where a jury "would not be able to follow the complexities of the evidence", but who will decide that? And what's to say an increasing number of cases would not go down this route (after all, it would be far cheaper).
     
  14. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    #14
    I have no problem with trying to make sure that Federal (and state) judges are highly qualified when they are appointed, and also that they maintain a level of skill and professionalism during their time on the bench.

    BUT, the huge problem with this is that the prosecutors will be the ones compiling the data and will have the power to make data skewed one way or the other. Plus, the yardstick they are choosing to use is mandetory minimum sentences. Something I don't like, not because they are wrong, but because they are the legislature telling the judiciary how to do their job. Before the right wing decided that this country needed to stick every black male between 15 and 30 in jail, the judiciary did just fine on its own without the legislature telling them what to do and how to do it.

    Oh, BTTM, the Florida Supreme Court's decision in 2000 dealt with a state election law, and the state's interpretation of that law. There were NO federal questions. The only federal issue was that because the effect the state interpretation of state law had on a federal election. The Supreme Court overstepped what it had previously defined as its own boundaries.
     
  15. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    #15
    I don't think so Tim. ;)

    The federal question was that it was a federal election. AND that a State Court was legislating from the Bench. It is the Federal court's obligation to enforce the Constitution on the States. They cannot violate the division of powers that is in the Constitution, and the FLA supreme court did.
     
  16. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    #16
    We're going to disagree for two reasons. One, you're wrong, and two, I actually know what I'm talking about. ;)

    The Florida Supreme Court was interpreting state law and state application of the state law. Period. The US Supreme Court would ordinarily not get involved in such a situation.

    This had nothing to do with the US Constitution. This had nothing to do with the State Court "legislating" from the bench b/c in all honesty, when an issue gets to the level of a Supreme Court (federal or state), any decision is a form of "legislating." WHAT, you say? A decision to say a law is unconstitutional is a decision that declares a law invalid. That is, in essence, a form of legislating. So is a court interpreting the scope of a law. So is a court saying a law means something different than what was expected or even intended.
     
  17. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    #17
    SNAP! ;)
    Actually you are correct the State supreme court can say that the law was wrong, however, at that point they have to remand the law to the legislature. They cannot rewrite the law. ;)
     
  18. macrumors 6502

    #18
    State's Right v. Federal Power & Ashcroft

    I noticed from the very beginning when the current adminstration choose the Zealous Ashcrap as the A.G.

    Case1: California legailzed select growers and distributers of medicianal(sp?) Marjuana(sp?). Ashcrap decided to put a stop to this, and used federal agents to enforce his moral objections to these drugs. Several people in Cali. proposed using the State Malitia to keep Ashcrap's agents out. (A small civil war?)

    Case2: Oregan legalized assisted suicide for terminally ill, and in pain patients. This of course was a moral outrage for the Fundamentalist Ashcrap. So he decreed that any doctor that preformed this assisted suicide, would have their medical license revoked immeadiatly (without trial).

    And now this "List" of "easy" judges.

    A wise man once said: (paraphrase) When the government does not trust the people it governs, it has lost it's mandate to govern.

    I think that describes exactly what is going on in DC right now. Either something big is going to happen soon (like huge protests, massive strikes, possibly even armed conflict), or America as was founded 227 years ago, will no longer exist.
     
  19. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    #19
    today's molly ivins piece:
    http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Aug/08112003/commenta/82944.asp
     
  20. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    #20
    Problem is that the Bush campaign filed in federal court before there ever was a decision from the State Supreme Court. If they did so because it was a federal election, that is a reversal of the state's rights position of the Republicans for many years standing. It seems to me they did it because the Federal Court was more conservative and they thought their case stood a better chance there. My whole point was to show the situational ethics involved in their legal strategy and I think it's pretty out there for all to see.
     
  21. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    #21
    States can decide how to hold their elections for president however they want; they can have a small delegate congress if they like, so long as they send their lot of voters to the electoral college they're fine under federal rules.
     
  22. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    #22
    You mean to say a political party flip-flopped on an issue for political expediency? I don't believe a word of it!:D
     

Share This Page