Patriot Act Revisited

[dilloduck]

There has been what I would term a rather "hysterical" outcry against executive and congressional interference with the constitution in the Schiavo matter yet where is the outcry form these same people over elements in the Patriot Act that make this last bit of "interference" look like a gnat on the sun? Having the FBI searching your home without a warrant is OK ? If you HAVE been searched you cannot even tell you own lawyer ?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

There has been what I would term a rather "hysterical" outcry against executive and congressional interference with the constitution in the Schiavo matter yet where is the outcry form these same people over elements in the Patriot Act that make this last bit of "interference" look like a gnat on the sun? Having the FBI searching your home without a warrant is OK ? If you HAVE been searched you cannot even tell you own lawyer ?

wheres that part of the act at?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There has been what I would term a rather "hysterical" outcry against executive and congressional interference with the constitution in the Schiavo matter yet where is the outcry form these same people over elements in the Patriot Act that make this last bit of "interference" look like a gnat on the sun? Having the FBI searching your home without a warrant is OK ? If you HAVE been searched you cannot even tell you own lawyer ?

Especially when the warrants can be issued right from the FBI, circumventing the approval of a judge who should be the one to issue the warrant. This gives the police too much power, however, given the state of our judiciary today, one could say the judiciary could also get in the way of justice.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

however, given the state of our judiciary today, one could say the judiciary could also get in the way of justice.

whats the state of our judiciary?

 

[dilloduck]

whats the state of our judiciary?

I'd say they are a bit prone to make decisions based on thier politics instead of the law in cases they are questionable. Too many loose constructionists---9th circuit comes to mind

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I'd say they are a bit prone to make decisions based on thier politics instead of the law in cases they are questionable. Too many loose constructionists---9th circuit comes to mind

aren't we responsible for that? letting presidents and senators pick judges by their political bent? Isn't the 9th circuit reviewed by the appeals courts and the USSC?

 

[dilloduck]

aren't we responsible for that? letting presidents and senators pick judges by their political bent? Isn't the 9th circuit reviewed by the appeals courts and the USSC?

Ultimately we're responsible for the whole 9 yards---too bad we don't have the bucks to back up our responsibilty

 

[ScreamingEagle]

whats the state of our judiciary?

Anti-constitutional. Even from the judiciary in the Supreme Court. Ruth Bad-girl Ginsberg comes immediately to mind. Oh, and then of course there's Stevens.

These are judges on high who like to consult international law for their activist rulings instead of our very own Constitutional law. God knows what liberal judges in the lower courts are doing...

aren't we responsible for that? letting presidents and senators pick judges by their political bent? Isn't the 9th circuit reviewed by the appeals courts and the USSC?

Yes, we are responsible for these bad judges. That is why I support Tom DeLay in weeding out the bad ones. Why are the Democrats so against DeLay for wanting to do that?

 

[no1tovote4]

aren't we responsible for that? letting presidents and senators pick judges by their political bent? Isn't the 9th circuit reviewed by the appeals courts and the USSC?

The 9th Circuit has been overturned more often than any other court by the SCOTUS. They are reactionary and often judge from political perspective rather than Constitutional certainty, but they cannot be removed from office except and unless they commit a crime. Therefore any effect unforeseen or approved of before they begin reactionary and politically motivated decisions make them virtually unimpeachable. The SCOTUS cannot remove them from their positions, they can only keep themselves busy overturning their scurilous decisions and remain ever vigilant.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Yes, we are responsible for these bad judges. That is why I support Tom DeLay in weeding out the bad ones. Why are the Democrats so against DeLay for wanting to do that?

Heres the problem with doing things the way that Delay is putting forth.

say we let congress review decisions by the courts and initiate some sort of impeachment proceedings because of a decision that congress feels is not 'constitutional': which could be interpreted<---hate that word now: in any number of ways but is going to end up being defined as a decision that the congress/senate doesn't agree with.

now, with congressional elections every two years, along with 1/3 of the senate every two years, we now could possibly end up with different interpretations of the constitution every two years. You think we have a constitutional crisis now, wait and see what would happen if delays plan is implemented.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

The 9th Circuit has been overturned more often than any other court by the SCOTUS. They are reactionary and often judge from political perspective rather than Constitutional certainty, but they cannot be removed from office except and unless they commit a crime. Therefore any effect unforeseen or approved of before they begin reactionary and politically motivated decisions make them virtually unimpeachable. The SCOTUS cannot remove them from their positions, they can only keep themselves busy overturning their scurilous decisions and remain ever vigilant.

as we must be also.

FYI, about the ninth circuit....

in 2001 the 9th circuit saw 10,372 of these only 14 were overturned. That is a rate of 1.35 overturns per thousand.

The 9th circuit is the largest in america. Largest by far. The next closest in size is the 4th circuit. Widely known as a very conservative panel.

the 4th circuit saw 5,078 cases in 2001 7 were overturned by the Supreme Court. That is a rate of 1.38 per thousand. The 4th circuit, the second largest in america is half the size of the 9th circuit

So to review.

9th - 10372/14
4th -- 5078/7

The 9th has a lower correction rate in regards to all the cases it sees.

http://www.uscourts.gov/links.html

Go to the link, see the map. Compare it to the 4th. Remember that California alone has 1/8th of the US population.

 

[no1tovote4]

as we must be also.

FYI, about the ninth circuit....

in 2001 the 9th circuit saw 10,372 of these only 14 were overturned. That is a rate of 1.35 overturns per thousand.

The 9th circuit is the largest in america. Largest by far. The next closest in size is the 4th circuit. Widely known as a very conservative panel.

the 4th circuit saw 5,078 cases in 2001 7 were overturned by the Supreme Court. That is a rate of 1.38 per thousand. The 4th circuit, the second largest in america is half the size of the 9th circuit

So to review.

9th - 10372/14
4th -- 5078/7

The 9th has a lower correction rate in regards to all the cases it sees.

http://www.uscourts.gov/links.html

Go to the link, see the map. Compare it to the 4th. Remember that California alone has 1/8th of the US population.

The percentages are unclear. They should be by the amount of decisions reviewed by the SCOTUS and a percentage of those. Most decisions are not heard or even brought before the SCOTUS, however on almost every Constitutional Decision that the 9th Circuit has made they have been overturned.

By making it based on all decisions made by them you try to overwhelm with statistics and lose sight of the point that was made, when the 9th Circuit makes Constitutional decisions they are overturned about 98% of the time, while other courts do not have such immense rates.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/983155/posts

During the year 2002, the 9th Circuit was overturned 12 of 16 cases brought before the SCOTUS, nobody has such a rate of overturned cases other than they.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Heres the problem with doing things the way that Delay is putting forth.

say we let congress review decisions by the courts and initiate some sort of impeachment proceedings because of a decision that congress feels is not 'constitutional': which could be interpreted<---hate that word now: in any number of ways but is going to end up being defined as a decision that the congress/senate doesn't agree with.

now, with congressional elections every two years, along with 1/3 of the senate every two years, we now could possibly end up with different interpretations of the constitution every two years. You think we have a constitutional crisis now, wait and see what would happen if delays plan is implemented.

So you think that an individual judge always interprets the Constitution correctly?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

So you think that an individual judge always interprets the Constitution correctly?

no, do you think that a handful of congressmen can? or a political party?

but thats not the point, the founders set up the branches and it states that the judiciary is to interpret through the courts. we would be fools to try to change that by taking away the power of one of the equal powers and stack it on to the legislative making them more powerful.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

The percentages are unclear. They should be by the amount of decisions reviewed by the SCOTUS and a percentage of those.

why is that?

By making it based on all decisions made by them you try to overwhelm with statistics and lose sight of the point that was made, when the 9th Circuit makes Constitutional decisions they are overturned about 98% of the time, while other courts do not have such immense rates.

say what? how does stating a/b=c constitute overwhelming with statistics?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/983155/posts

During the year 2002, the 9th Circuit was overturned 12 of 16 cases brought before the SCOTUS, nobody has such a rate of overturned cases other than they.

so, do we valuate courts or judges based on the number of decisions they've had overturned and base their nominations or seats on that issue?

 

[no1tovote4]

why is that?

say what? how does stating a/b=c constitute overwhelming with statistics?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/983155/posts


so, do we valuate courts or judges based on the number of decisions they've had overturned and base their nominations or seats on that issue?

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.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

no, do you think that a handful of congressmen can? or a political party?

but thats not the point, the founders set up the branches and it states that the judiciary is to interpret through the courts. we would be fools to try to change that by taking away the power of one of the equal powers and stack it on to the legislative making them more powerful.

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.

 

[dilloduck]

Ultimately we're responsible for the whole 9 yards---too bad we don't have the bucks to back up our responsibilty

Additionally the peoples power to have any effect on the selection of any judges is too many steps removed form direct election----the courts know this so they are relatively safe in any decision they make.

 

[no1tovote4]

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.

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.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Which is why it never happens----lawyers run the show !