On the Past Days

[dilloduck]

the congressional and executive branches worked together to pass a law for the benifit of one person.....i belive that is specifically prohibited by the rules of the congress and the executive branches .... congress shall pass no law ... blah blah blah

as for the judicial system....they simple granted a person the right to die based upon the evidence presented .... then the judical system up held the decision time and again

and if the person who presented them with the original evidence made a mistake ???? what happens??

 

[manu1959]

and if the person who presented them with the original evidence made a mistake ???? what happens??

that would be the appeals process....i belive something like 30 (who knows) judges upheld the original decision and the supreme court refused to hear the appeal at least twice

 

[manu1959]

Help me---what does the constitution say should happen when the judicial branch of our federal government screws up?

i belive that a judge is asked to step down and a new one is appointed

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Help me---what does the constitution say should happen when the judicial branch of our federal government screws up?

there are many recourses, it depends on the screwup. If a man is wrongfully convicted and the courts refuse (screwup) to overturn, theres the pardon. If they decide by the laws and now it doesn't seem that the law works the way it was intended, the legislature writes new law, however, in this instance even that wouldn't have worked because rewriting new law would require overriding the marriage sacrament.

 

[no1tovote4]

I've read it, many times. what you fail to understand is that the constitution applies to the FEDERAL courts. the states courts are an entirely different matter and according to the 10th amendment, those powers not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the state or the people.

They didn't change any Jurisdiction of the State Courts only of a Federal Court, allowing a case to be brought before them that was previously outside their jurisdiction. Specifically it was within the power granted by the Constitution. Had they attempted to add to or change the Jurisdiction of the State Court I would have agreed with you, but they did not.

 

[dilloduck]

there are many recourses, it depends on the screwup. If a man is wrongfully convicted and the courts refuse (screwup) to overturn, theres the pardon. If they decide by the laws and now it doesn't seem that the law works the way it was intended, the legislature writes new law, however, in this instance even that wouldn't have worked because rewriting new law would require overriding the marriage sacrament.

SO in real time and in real practice there is NO balance of power and the judical branch wins. Perhaps appointing judges denies people equal access to the law, since we can only vote for the one doing the appointing and are denied direct vote.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

SO in real time and in real practice there is NO balance of power and the judical branch wins. Perhaps appointing judges denies people equal access to the law, since we can only vote for the one doing the appointing and are denied direct vote.

no, nobody wins dillo. and you are so very correct when you talk about how YOU are responsible for the judges that are appointed by who you vote for be it president or senators.

 

[no1tovote4]

no, nobody wins dillo. and you are so very correct when you talk about how YOU are responsible for the judges that are appointed by who you vote for be it president or senators.

Congress has the power to Impeach Judges for High Crimes (Crimes done by those in power) and Misdemeanors.

In CO, we have the power to vote them out (not in they are appointed). There is a vote every so many years even for the Supreme Court Judges on whether or not to retain the Judge in their office.

 

[dilloduck]

Congress has the power to Impeach Judges for High Crimes (Crimes done by those in power) and Misdemeanors.

In CO, we have the power to vote them out (not in they are appointed). There is a vote every so many years even for the Supreme Court Judges on whether or not to retain the Judge in their office.

Let's face it------any law that says that you can quote a book but you can't READ from it is stupid as shit and a convicted murderer is now free to do it again. and we teach our kids to respect the law??????? :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

 

[manu1959]

Let's face it------any law that says that you can quote a book but you can't READ from it is stupid as shit and a convicted murderer is now free to do it again. and we teach our kids to respect the law??????? :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

the jury violated the law by bringing reference material into the jury room which was not approved in advance by the judge.....

the jury is told when they are sworn in that they may not bring anything into the jury room that is not approved in advance by the judge....esential they can bring a piece of paper and a pencil and the can take notes and ask to see evidnec....

the jury fucked up.....blame the jury not the judge.....

 

[no1tovote4]

Let's face it------any law that says that you can quote a book but you can't READ from it is stupid as shit and a convicted murderer is now free to do it again. and we teach our kids to respect the law??????? :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Nah, the guy isn't free to do it. It was only the portion of deliberations relating to the penalty phase that were overturned. In effect it took a Death Sentence and turned it into Life w/no parole.

 

[dilloduck]

the jury violated the law by bringing reference material into the jury room which was not approved in advance by the judge.....

the jury is told when they are sworn in that they may not bring anything into the jury room that is not approved in advance by the judge....esential they can bring a piece of paper and a pencil and the can take notes and ask to see evidnec....

the jury fucked up.....blame the jury not the judge.....

no---I blame the law---judges change it anyway

 

[Mr. P]

no---I blame the law---judges change it anyway

If you're serious, yer a scarry guy dillo..

 

[dilloduck]

If you're serious, yer a scarry guy dillo..

when people get so anal about shit like this, common sense and compassion fly out the window and any respect there maybe left for the law takes a hit.

 

[manu1959]

no---I blame the law---judges change it anyway

so it is the laws fault the murder got caught and therefore the murderer is not guilty?

 

[dilloduck]

so it is the laws fault the murder got caught and therefore the murderer is not guilty?

no---the law that prohibits a juror from sharing his personal knowledge and experience.

 

[manu1959]

no---the law that prohibits a juror from sharing his personal knowledge and experience.

to my knowlege and the knowledge of all the criminal defence attorneys in my family there is no such law

 

[dilloduck]

to my knowlege and the knowledge of all the criminal defence attorneys in my family there is no such law

Thats not what I'm hearing on other posts

 

[SmarterThanYou]

no---the law that prohibits a juror from sharing his personal knowledge and experience.

what do personal knowledge and experience have to do with facts in a case? Thats part of the problem with peoples view of the court system. They base their decisions on emotion, common sense(whos I wonder), and intuition and not on the facts and evidence as displayed by both attorneys. The ONLY time some intuition or thought might come into play is credibility of witness statements. Thats it.

 

[manu1959]

Thats not what I'm hearing on other posts

i guess we could ask them to produce the law...... absent that they are blowing smoke.....