Problem With New Sc

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]the 5-4 decision against a convicted murderer who failed to file his federal appeal on time after a judge told him the wrong deadline. Liberal Justice David Souter wrote a sharp dissent that it was "intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way," but the conservatives thought the law was clear.

"A rule's a rule," said Carvin.[/quote]

while i like the direction of abortion and some of the other issues, this is a travesty... conservative judges making a mockery of the law, the spirit of the law.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1304019' date='Jun 28 2007, 01:06 AM']while i like the direction of abortion and some of the other issues, this is a travesty... conservative judges making a mockery of the law, the spirit of the law.[/quote]
Have you read [url="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-5306.pdf"]the decision[/url]? The 14-day extension was granted after he failed to file an appeal in a timely manner the first time. It's obvious this guy's lawyers have a problem keeping a schedule.

Nonetheless, the law allows him a 14-day extension. He was wise to take advantage of it.

The problem with this story is its attempt to cast an almost conservative Supreme Court in a bad light. IMO, the originators of this story have little concern for Bowles. This is another attempt to cast conservatism or constitutional constructionists as "cold hearted" and lacking compassion.

The fact is the court has to rule according to the law. The law is clear and published for all to see. But where did the law come from? Congress. Congress created the 14-day extension. It's not in the Supreme Court jurisdiction to change laws passed by Congress unless it's a violation of the constitution. If anyone is to blame, it's in this order: Bowles' lawyers, Congress, and the errant federal judge to an extent.

[dairygirl4u2c]

It was a couple days off. As the minority said, it was facially reasonable to rely on the judge. It would have been nice for his lawyer to checked up, but he didn't. Of course, people are expected to know the law, but practically, punishing the lawyer does nothing for the person who now sits in jail because of his lawyer's lack of being anal retentive as the Supreme Court desires.

Furthermore, as teh minority said, they weren't relying so much on just the lower judge's error, but also on SC opinions. Now, I understand and respect Robert's philosophy that if a decision or many even are wrongly decided, it's not wrong to go back to the original law as it's suppose to be. So, the law, the true law, was not what it appeared to be. But with that said, it's simply inequitable again to make what appears to be the law not the law. Were they to have followed stare decisis, the lawyer would have been okay to overlook the minor error.
Plus the original law they were going back to was flawed, it was wrong. There are many defiitinos of jurisdiction. But, even beyound that..

So anyway you cut it, the court should go for equitable exceptions. It claims it does not have the power to make an equitable exception, so allows the travesty of justice to occur. It can make the exception. It's the judicial philosophy that COngress cannot micromanage every little consequence that results from its rulemaking. The travesty is that people like to say.... well, congress can change the rule, but th reality is that Congress will not bend for soemone who they think is a criminal (tho if appeal is possible it's not really true) or for just one person, until it's a big deal. People fall through the cracks of they system.

That's also what the Supreme Court is for... not washing their hands of it as Pilate did and saying "a rule is a rule"

[dairygirl4u2c]

It's really not even about equitable exceptions if you follow the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law says that it's not an exception because what happene would be permissible. If you allow for gliches, which Congress didn't account for. So really, there was no law on the issue, except a technicality which under the spirit of hte law does not apply.

The supreme court denied a man an appeal on a technicality that does not follow the spirit of the law.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1304168' date='Jun 28 2007, 11:06 AM']So anyway you cut it, the court should go for equitable exceptions. It claims it does not have the power to make an equitable exception, so allows the travesty of justice to occur. It can make the exception. It's the judicial philosophy that COngress cannot micromanage every little consequence that results from its rulemaking. The travesty is that people like to say.... well, congress can change the rule, but th reality is that Congress will not bend for soemone who they think is a criminal (tho if appeal is possible it's not really true) or for just one person, until it's a big deal. People fall through the cracks of they system.

That's also what the Supreme Court is for... not washing their hands of it as Pilate did and saying "a rule is a rule"[/quote]
The law is not a supposed law or imaginary law. It's a [url="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+28USC2107"]real law[/url] formulated and approved by Congress, and it appears it has been in place since the 1940s. If Souter believes there is a problem with it, he should have recommended modification earlier.

You may say it sounds unfair, but deadlines are enforced. If I fail to pay a ticket and miss my court date, they will issue a warrant for my arrest. If I am arrested and miss my arraignment, they will lock me in jail. If I am on bail and miss my trial date, they will lock me up.

The Supreme Court can not pick and choose which laws to obey.

In regards to Pilate, I don't remember him saying a rule is a rule. Quite the opposite. According to him and his rules for evidence, he found no wrong in Jesus. It's the crowd that wanted to ignore any requirement for evidence and declare Jesus guilty. It was mob rule more than rule of law. Sounds like what is being drummed up in this case.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1304030' date='Jun 28 2007, 01:54 AM']The problem with this story is its attempt to cast an almost conservative Supreme Court in a bad light. IMO, the originators of this story have little concern for Bowles. [b]This is another attempt to cast conservatism or constitutional constructionists as "cold hearted" and lacking compassion.[/b][/quote]
Wow. I did not realize how prophetic I was being and then this headline hit the wire a little over an hour ago.

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070628/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_schools_race_11"]Supreme Court rejects school race plans[/url]

You see? Now the SCOTUS is racist too! Evil. Eeeeeevil!

[dairygirl4u2c]

Of course, you and other conservatives knee jerk reaction is to say, you have to know the law and a dead line is a deadline. But if you'd think about it, I'm sure I could convince most otherwise.
I see that a deadline is a deadline and to a degree you are to know the law. But be realistic. Look at it like this.... who really studies it and applies it themselves? If you or I or anyone were giong to trial, we'd all have been screwed because we relied on our lawyer, and even the judge. The law as it's written simply states that teh time for appeal is 14 days. To pretend that it can speak for itself in its purpose is to stick your head in teh ground. Instead, look for intent. Would any rational person, given that a rational person would rely on these guys, want to send them to jail, given that it oculd happen to anyone? No, they would not. So, the purpose of the law probably doesn't really extend to the person currently sent to jail.

Purposes are rarely defined in teh law. Purpose is more than just what the law says, but why it was said. For instance, there is a law that says that if the purpose of the law is saftey related, then you don't have to define that the other person acted unreasonably. There's a law that says you cannot leave your keys in your cars ignition unattended. Is teh purpose of the law to prevent people from jumping the car and causing accidents? or, is it to prevent property damage and problems to others. In a real world example, they only knew the purpose when there was a legislative history. Otherwise, they would not have known.
My purpose, no pun intended, is to show that purpose is not clear, and applying a dead black letter law is a travesty.

edit: note that in that example, they found that the law wasn't safety related in its purpose

Edited June 28, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

I don't think the other case you provide is the same thing. I agree the conservatives are often unduly villianized, that case included. I'm probably more conservative than anything fyi.
Just in the case of this thread, they got it dead wrong.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1304427' date='Jun 28 2007, 03:04 PM']Of course, you and other conservatives knee jerk reaction is to say, you have to know the law and a dead line is a deadline. But if you'd think about it, I'm sure I could convince most otherwise.[/quote]
I said the law is the law, and separation of powers exists for a reason. If you don't like the law, contact your congressman. Change the law to stipulate what latitude the court is allowed to exercise.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I thought the purpose of this debate, was to debate how the court should have decided. I think I've stated my argument pretty well, in terms of judicial philoophsy, but your last reponse does not seem to address that.
A rational judge could say that hte purpose of the law is what is meant to be sought, not a dead application of black letter. That doesn't have to do with what Congress gives it power to do, as you discussing right now. I do realize that I could get congress to changes things, but it does not address the issue at hand, judicial philosohpy.
And if you were referring ot the fact that it says 14 days, and does not say otherwise, that still does not address the issue of purpose of hte law that I brought up. If you are saying that it says 14, so it has to be 14, I can follow you, but you have to be explicit about how it negates the argument about intent.
I do not see how you have addressed my issues.

basically, what's wrong with going for purpose?

Edited June 28, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Groo the Wanderer]

Only problem I have with the new SC is that Ginsburg and Souter are still on it. Replace 'em both with another Scalia or Roberts or Thomas and I'd be just peachy!

[Maggyie]

This situation seems to illustrate something I once read somewhere that people from Romance cultures, like the Italians, view the law as an ideal, understanding that all humans fall short, while in America, the law is there to be [b]enforced[/b], and woe betide anyone who doesn't realize it!

[dairygirl4u2c]

again, groo likes to make statements but doesn't actually address concerns or debate. his demeanor is what's wrong with america. but, some people are not capable of critical thought.

even what maggie said is wrongful thinking. the law is to be enforced, but only teh law as it's intended to be. just because it says something doesn't mean the strict application is what the law is.

[kamiller42]

Ok, I'll answer more of your arguments even though the majority opinion states my case much better than I could.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1304427' date='Jun 28 2007, 03:04 PM']I see that a deadline is a deadline and to a degree you are to know the law. But be realistic. Look at it like this.... who really studies it and applies it themselves? If you or I or anyone were giong to trial, we'd all have been screwed because we relied on our lawyer, and even the judge.[/quote]
Then sue your lawyer for malpractice and urge a new judge to declare a mistrial. Personally, I would have made sure my lawyer made the first deadline rather than risk messing up an extension.

[quote]The law as it's written simply states that teh time for appeal is 14 days. To pretend that it can speak for itself in its purpose is to stick your head in teh ground. Instead, look for intent. Would any rational person, given that a rational person would rely on these guys, want to send them to jail, given that it oculd happen to anyone? No, they would not. So, the purpose of the law probably doesn't really extend to the person currently sent to jail.[/quote]
If you don't like the 14 days, contact your congressman. Blame the errant district judge. If you really need to blame the SCOTUS, they should be last on your list.

[quote]Purposes are rarely defined in teh law. Purpose is more than just what the law says, but why it was said. For instance, there is a law that says that if the purpose of the law is saftey related, then you don't have to define that the other person acted unreasonably. There's a law that says you cannot leave your keys in your cars ignition unattended. Is teh purpose of the law to prevent people from jumping the car and causing accidents? or, is it to prevent property damage and problems to others. In a real world example, they only knew the purpose when there was a legislative history. Otherwise, they would not have known.
My purpose, no pun intended, is to show that purpose is not clear, and applying a dead black letter law is a travesty.[/quote]
I tried legal relativism the last time I received a ticket. It didn't work.

[dairygirl4u2c]

malpractice doesn't do you much good when you're in jail and don't want to be there.

SCOTUS is the last on my list as far as blame goes. but they still get their part. there's many things they could have ruled on, including lack of due process. they could have gave themselves an implied authority to rule.

you can't just say talk to congress as congress doesn't respond to little issues of a person unless it becomes big. theory and reality disconnect. yet you are just repeating "talk to congress" instead of addresssing my concern about the reality of the situation.

just because it didn't work for you doesn't mean it shouldn't work.
you can't just call it a buzz word tha no one likes, ie relativism, and think it's an argument and not actually debate the issue. notice you didn't address the main issue i posed: basically, what's wrong with going for purpose?
the hypothetical i gave shows that purposes are not defined. yet you simply call it relativism and don't expand.
i could argue agaist myself better than you are making your position.

Edited July 4, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c