Patriot Act Revisited

[ScreamingEagle]

It would be an untrained and unknowledgeable check, those that are untrained in law can easily be of incorrect opinion in regards to legal ethics.

Many congressmen tend to be lawyers. Don't think it would be too much of a problem for them. And since they MAKE the law, shouldn't they KNOW the law?

Even the unwashed can spot treason when they see it - such as when Ginsberg says we should look to foreign law for our U.S. rulings.

 

[no1tovote4]

Many congressmen tend to be lawyers. Don't think it would be too much of a problem for them. And since they MAKE the law, shouldn't they KNOW the law?

Even the unwashed can spot treason when they see it - such as when Ginsberg says we should look to foreign law for our U.S. rulings.

Almost none of the lawyers in Congress are Constitutional lawyers with an understanding of the Constitution. They often make laws that are stricken down correctly after review. It is clear that even they, who are not practicing attorneys, can be clueless. However specifically Congress often has those that are untrained in the law whatsoever.

Simply writing one law does not give one knowledge of every law ever written.

 

[dilloduck]

Many congressmen tend to be lawyers. Don't think it would be too much of a problem for them. And since they MAKE the law, shouldn't they KNOW the law?

Even the unwashed can spot treason when they see it - such as when Ginsberg says we should look to foreign law for our U.S. rulings.

Constitutional or not, the perception would be that of a political party attacking the Supreme Court. Nobody wants to take that on---they would rather just try to pack SCOTUS

 

[SmarterThanYou]

If you look at the amount of decisions that actually go before the SCOTUS to begin with you will find that more of the 9th Circuits decisions go before the SCOTUS than in other places, this is right because they have more population and more cases. However by percentage of amount that get overturned by the time they get there the 9th is much higher than other courts. Simply saying they have more cases and that is why is simply disingenuous when by percentage they have a higher overturn rate than any other circuit court of decisions heard in front of the SCOTUS.

So trying to put in all the cases heard and then make that the statistic instead of the percentage that get overturned that are heard is attempting to overwhelm the statistic with inactionable data. Actionable data are those that allow us to compare clearly at a point where they become equal. Those that are heard before the SCOTUS and what percentage are eventually overturned.

but then we only pay attention to those cases that reach the highest court and ignores the rest of the data.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Reviewing the decisions of a judge for purposes of impeachment would not be taking away any power from the judiciary. It would only be keeping the judiciary in check.

The legislature has always had this power. DeLay is not proposing anything new, I don't think. Except that it is high time that the legislature starts using some of its clout to keep the activist judiciary in line.

and now here is where we could run into a problem.....impeachment proceedings. we've already seen the rampant partisanship that comes with impeachment and how badly it can be abused, why would I think that it wouldn't be abused in this way either?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Constitutional or not, the perception would be that of a political party attacking the Supreme Court. Nobody wants to take that on---they would rather just try to pack SCOTUS

And that is part of the problem. Our legislative branch needs to exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL CHECKS in order to weed out the problem judges who are not following Constitutional law.

Almost none of the lawyers in Congress are Constitutional lawyers with an understanding of the Constitution. They often make laws that are stricken down correctly after review. It is clear that even they, who are not practicing attorneys, can be clueless. However specifically Congress often has those that are untrained in the law whatsoever.

Simply writing one law does not give one knowledge of every law ever written.

That does pose a problem...but I think we are addressing the more obvious cases here.

 

[no1tovote4]

but then we only pay attention to those cases that reach the highest court and ignores the rest of the data.

The rest of the data is inactionable to the comparison. In order to make it actionable you need more variables other than they hear more cases.

Such as, how many of the cases are of a Constitutional Character? How many of the cases are of a Criminal Character? How many of the cases are lawsuits? etc. All of the data would need to be analyzed in order to find out a correct percentage with actionable data. Since we do not have them cut down to all of the cases, the best way to make the data actually actionable is to find a common ground where they become equal. Constitutional Cases heard before the SCOTUS and the percentage where they are overturned is clearly such a point.

Since almost every case decided of Constitutional Character are appealed to the SCOTUS who decides whether to hear them or not, we get to a place where they become equal where the Actionable Data is self-weaned from the ocean of data you wish to use to overwhelm the actionable statistic.

By first taking that number then dividing by an inactionable figure you have attempted to overwhelm the statistic with inactionable data.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

and now here is where we could run into a problem.....impeachment proceedings. we've already seen the rampant partisanship that comes with impeachment and how badly it can be abused, why would I think that it wouldn't be abused in this way either?

Why can't we just all get along?