Problem With New Sc

[kamiller42]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1311951' date='Jul 4 2007, 12:45 AM']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.[/quote]
Relativism is the apt word, not a buzz word. You acknowledge the law but which its enforcement to be conditional, conditional to a standard not defined by the proper authority, but one defined by the SCOTUS. What other congressional laws is the SCOTUS allowed to bend for their purposes? If the SCOTUS is to have any flexibility in this matter, it is congress' responsibility to define its powers and boundaries. In the case of this law, Congress left no latitude. In the numerous examples cited in the majority opinion, it's quite the opposite.

[gamesfanatic04]

To bad, looks like the dude needs a better lawyer.

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1311691' date='Jul 3 2007, 09:23 PM']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.[/quote]


I fluffy air extraction in your general direction...

Your question was what is wrong with the SC. I told you my opinion so nyah!

As far as the decision...dunno and will not speculate because I am not a jurist. IMHO, the SC has done way too much loose interpretation of the law over the past 40 years, so it is quite past time for the pendulum to swing the other way. Will every decision be spot on? No, and I am OK with that as long as the trend is correct. Only God is the perfect judge.

I tend to be a strict constructionist when looking at the Constitution...it AIN'T a living document....

[journeyman]

one of the purposes of "time" elements in the law is to allow people to plan and get on with their lives.

To provide one example: a statute of limitations prevents enforcement of a cause of action after a certain period of time.
Is it horrible to learn that a surgeon who left a sponge or other medical debris inside the body after surgery cannot be sued for the error unless it is discovered and suit filed within a relatively short period? Well, yes, I think there is something wrong with a law that terminates your right to file suit for damages before you even know you've been damaged. Some states changed their statutes of limitation to add a "discovery" provision . . . others, like my own, did not.

Another purpose of time elements is to allow for the efficient (I will resist the impulse to analogize judicial efficiency to military interlligence) operation of the judicial system. statutes of limitations, scheduling deadlines, appeal deadlines are intended to make prosecution of a case work . . . so that the suit is brought while witnesses are still alive and available (and arguably, still remember what happened), while the records, exhibits, transcripts are still readily available in the court's file, while the court still has jurisdiction over the proceeding and the parties. Without jurisdiction, a court cannot act at all. Without a factual record, the court's decision sits in a vacuum.

If any court is permitted to apply an equitable exception to the rules for administration of justice, then no citizen can predict whether an action is lawful, or will be the subject of an equitable exception. This opens the door to favoritism, or worse yet, judicial corruption. That creates a lack of trust in the third wing of our separated powers . . . the impartial venue in which all our disputes should be resolved if we cannot (peacefully and rationally) resolve them on our own . . . an equitable exception, rather than being a source of comfort, ends up being a source of irritation, or even rebellion.

[dairygirl4u2c]

you're probably creating a problem where practically speaking there is none, or extremely small.
each case can be looked at on a case by case basis. don't jump to think that things are going to start going bad everywhere. going past is still the exception by far to the rule. and probaly would be in the future. if there's fraud, the prisoner doesn't get to go. if it's uncertain, then they can decide.
this case should allow at least this man to go free, and they can then say anymore are subject to penalties, as now lawyers are expected to watch judges.
i would not be surprised if an attorneys mistake can normally cause jail time. but, when it's a judges, things should be different.
it shouldn't be that way even if hte lawyer made the mistake, if jail time is involved. if it's about monetary suits, the lawyer cnabe held liable.

a brightline rule at the expense of justice uually doesn't fly with most reasonable judges. it shouldn't here either.

[journeyman]

I have no idea of current statistics of case filings in our litigious society, but I beg to differ. Every judge I know is busy every day hearing the cases that are on their dockets. Retired judges, much like retired priests are covering Masses, are hearing cases. There are literally hundreds of cases being heard, setttled or tried on a daily basis in the larger court systems in the Commonwealth.

procedural factoid . . . if the Commonwealth does not bring a criminal defendant to trial within x days (I think it is 120), the defendant goes free. The same judges hearing the civil cases also hear the criminal cases. As a taxpayer, do you want the criminal trials heard on time, or do you want an "exception" to bump the case off the docket and let the defendant go free . . . "on a technicality" is what I think the law and order types call it.

Scheduling requirements are there to ensure a justice system for all . . . .the system is, sadly, a mass production system . . . if you don't stay on schedule, it isn't just your case that is affected, it's everybody else this week, and next.

Should there be an escape hatch when someone messes up - ideally, yes - but once the product on the assembly line gets past my station without part A being bolted to part B . . . it will cost a fortune to shut the system down so I can go fix my mistake. In the justice system, you don't get that chance unless it is specifically granted. I don't know what they do on assembly lines, but I hear stopping the line is not high on anyone's list of things for which they want to be responsible. In the judicial system, they deny your motion and move on to the next case.

[dairygirl4u2c]

you say in the justice system youdon't get the chance to fix the mistakes, and act as if it's something that's just hte way it is. like an assembly line you say. i say you can make an analogy for anything, and it's all just a way to rationalize the decision that was made.

the bottomline is that a man was denied justice due to professionals, not his own error.

and the law isn't clear that it extends to that, so the justices should seek justice, not dead black letter application. i can see and coudl accept that the judge's mistake shouldn't allow the loose interpretation. but, if not the judge, then at least the lawyer. the bottomline again was that it wasn't teh defendant.

as far as petitioning congress, what would they say in the petition? as for this specific law of 14 days, they could change it, but probably won't as it's a single person who they don't care about. as for legilating judicial philoohpy, like allowing loose interpretation, what do you want them to say? "you can interpret loosely sometimes"? i guess it's better than nothing, but it's not like that gives much guidance on each individual situation. that's why the judges in my mind are needed, not so much for the obvious, but for the less obvious but that needs insight that cannot come from trying to make limited laws that cover unlimied reality. i think no one would say they shouldn't interpret loosely sometimes. and most would laugh to hear you say to make a law that says "you can interpret loosely sometimes" because the judges already do, often. they prob wouldn't even consider passing that law.
i'm not sure what you think i would have to petition congress to do.

the bottomline that you're all trying to dance around in order to justify your predetermined position for your beloved court. a defendant was denied justice because of error of professionals, that was not his own err.

you all should be ashamed of yourselves.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1313451' date='Jul 5 2007, 10:49 AM']the bottomline is that a man was denied justice due to professionals, not his own error.[/quote]
Being a convicted murderer is no error?

[dairygirl4u2c]

now you're switching the argument from what it was, about procedure.
we can have maybe a little leway considering that he had his say in court. but, justice is not served in our system until all possible appeals have been taken advantage of. here, he could not appeal. appeals overrule the lower courts sometimes. this could be that time. he could be an innocent man.
statistically he's prob guilty, and one can take solice in that, but our system should leave no reasonable doubt.

Edited July 5, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c