To: Spackidagoosh
Bush signed his 180.....who is this judge.
5 posted on
09/16/2004 1:54:00 PM PDT by
mystery-ak
(DNC=girlymen)
To: mystery-ak
Bush signed his 180.....who is this judge. did he? I thought he had not.
10 posted on
09/16/2004 1:54:41 PM PDT by
gilliam
To: mystery-ak
Even if he didnt, what is the difference between this and lets say oh ordering abortion clinics to release records on partial birth abortions? Or Rush's medical records? This smack of high hypocracy on the judiciary.
13 posted on
09/16/2004 1:55:46 PM PDT by
aft_lizard
(I actually voted for John Kerry before I voted against him)
To: mystery-ak
He didn't, actually. Kerry and Bush should have some sort of 180-signing ceremony and let everyone sort through the pile.
To: mystery-ak
agreed, what lawsuit is this in reference too?
150 posted on
09/16/2004 2:15:16 PM PDT by
HamiltonJay
("You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.")
To: mystery-ak
The case against Judge Baer is very different from that of "the Romer 6." Analysis of his first controversial opinion reveals a fairly detailed interaction with the facts, evidence and precedents pertinent to the case.183 He was using the tools of his trade. He was not making up new constitutional "rights" or legislating from the bench. The problem with Baers first opinion was pointed out in his own words in his second opinion: A legal opinion stands for a proposition of law, a holding. Additional material which is included in most opinions but which does not relate directly to the holding is known as dicta. Although dicta may color the holding of an opinion, it by no means constitutes a legal or factual conclusion. On that score, unfortunately the hyperbole (dicta) in my initial decision not only obscured the true focus of my analysis, but regretfully may have demeaned the law-abiding men and women who make Washington Heights their home and the vast majority of the dedicated men and women in blue who patrol the streets of our great City.184 Baers comments, about demeaning the police, refer to statements in his first opinion implying that the police in question were part of a corrupt and incompetent force and that a specific officer who had testified was not to be believed.185 As a result, Baer originally suppressed 34 kilograms of cocaine and 2 kilograms of heroin and a confession to twenty drug-running trips.186 Even this does not rise to the level of constituting judicial tyranny in any of the senses encountered in the Romer opinion. On the other hand, Baers confession of analytical incompetence could have serious consequences if this opinion is not an anomaly. Impeachment was used to remove the incompetent Judge Pickering in 1803but only because he was thought insane. Thus, targeting Baer for impeachment is probably near the edge of legitimacy. If Congress is concerned that this is a judge who is demonstrating a pattern of analytical incompetence, it could certainly investigate him. There would be cause for concern if there were numerous instances in which any such incompetence were endangering the public as it did in the Bayless case. We have seen that scrutiny less than a congressional investigation has had a salutary effect. However, calling for Baers impeachment based on this one opinion alone appears to be illegitimate. From the Regent University Law review
Vol.10, 1998
276 posted on
09/16/2004 3:38:35 PM PDT by
marty60
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson