Posted on 03/30/2012 1:41:06 PM PDT by Hunton Peck
I attacked the judge, his decision and his rationale and I did not attack you.
How about “Lacks Standing”?
“Rich people can hire the very best lawyers, and thereby get away with crimes for which poor people go to prison. Poor people and Rich people get very different versions of Justice.”
Your comment suggests that NO MATTER WHAT, in any and every case, a “rich person” will get away with a crime and in every case an innocent poor person will go to jail.
It reflects a nice populist sentiment, but it is not realistic. The reality is that a rich person can hire the highest priced lawyer available, and still get convicted and actually be innocent, and “poor” people are constantly escaping convictions, not on the evidence, but on technicalities. It makes no difference to the victim (rich or poor) of a crime why their attacher was not convicted - because they had a high priced attorney, or because they had a slick public defender.
“The law” and the judicial system are two separate things. Your populist sentiments and the anomalies I just mentioned are flaws in how the judicial system - courts, trials, judges & juries - is and is not working well. Those issues are with us even when “the law” (the laws) are written in such a way to incorporate “equal protection” within them.
Our court system is formed on the recognition that there is no such thing as “perfect justice” - there is no set of angelic humans to whom perfect truth, perfect wisdom, and perfect judgement can perfectly divide the innocent from the guilty. So, we rely on two things to obtain is not prefect justicem just the best we can expect. We rely on a trial system of adversaries whose job it is to convince a jury of our peers that their point of view, their sense of justice, is the correct one. It’s not perfect. It’s just maybe better than you can get in most of the world.
No, you didn't and I didn't take it that way. I agree, the decision was wrong, but I understand why some people would think it was legally correct.
Usually, all you need to know is who appointed him, and you can virtually predict how he will rule on any particular issue. Our Supreme Court is like that as well. Pick any issue, the four idiots on the court will rule for the Liberal side, the four sane and normal judges will rule for the Conservative side, and the Fence sitter with his finger in the air may come down on one side or the other.
As someone once said about the proposition 8 lawsuit, "Why don't we save a lot of time and just ask Justice Kennedy what he thinks? "
:)
I haven’t been following this story, but the courts are the only hope the parasites have to stay on the government teet. State and local budgets no longer get the “boatloads” of federal taxpayer money that supported public salaries and pensions.
I’ve never thought a judge’s opinion ‘juvenile’ before!
Stupid, convoluted, wrong, insane... but never juvenile.
I did not mean to imply that.
It reflects a nice populist sentiment, but it is not realistic. The reality is that a rich person can hire the highest priced lawyer available, and still get convicted and actually be innocent, and “poor” people are constantly escaping convictions, not on the evidence, but on technicalities. It makes no difference to the victim (rich or poor) of a crime why their attacher was not convicted - because they had a high priced attorney, or because they had a slick public defender.
I am thinking of William Kennedy Smith and O.J. Simpson as obvious examples. Sometimes people get convicted while using high priced lawyers, but for the most part, high priced lawyers tend to tip the scales in favor of the defendant much more so than a public defender.
“The law” and the judicial system are two separate things. Your populist sentiments and the anomalies I just mentioned are flaws in how the judicial system - courts, trials, judges & juries - is and is not working well. Those issues are with us even when “the law” (the laws) are written in such a way to incorporate “equal protection” within them.
I just thought making things "equally bad" would at least make things "equal." My argument was more of a tongue in cheek commentary than a real proposal.
Our court system is formed on the recognition that there is no such thing as “perfect justice” - there is no set of angelic humans to whom perfect truth, perfect wisdom, and perfect judgement can perfectly divide the innocent from the guilty. So, we rely on two things to obtain is not prefect justicem just the best we can expect. We rely on a trial system of adversaries whose job it is to convince a jury of our peers that their point of view, their sense of justice, is the correct one. It’s not perfect. It’s just maybe better than you can get in most of the world.
They tell me so, but my own personal observations of local cases have invariably yielded many ridiculous outcomes where justice most certainly wasn't done.
From what I can see, we could do just as well spinning a roulette wheel.
A general problem with leftist Judges is they tend not to care at all about the law and instead concern themselves almost exclusively with their own ideological goals.
This has the effeict of making their “judgement very fast”
I couldn’t agree more that the 14th amendment is perhaps the 2nd most irresponsible amendment to the Federal Constitution.
Democrat appointed judges care as much for the law as they do for fly you swat. Its an annoyance to them at best.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.