If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
Our Federal judges serve for life or good behavior (U.S. Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1). So are Canadian judges http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/trib/page4.html No, not exactly. Their "security of tenture" seems to be based on statute, not Constitution (although I may be mistaken; the source of the tenure is not clearly stated). They may be removed for ethical violations by a council of other judges (who may or may not be subject to political pressure). A U.S. Federal judge holds a lifetime commission and can only be removed by impeachment. Very few have suffered this fate. Note that financial security also flows from the Constitution. Administrative independance has a clear basis in common law. Not much can happen to such an official who does get "tied down" in trivia. Except that he becomes unable to spend time on important matters. Indeed. But it is the judge, him/herself that determines what is or is not important. It's not perfect but it helps Perhaps. On the other hand it does keep the heavy hand of any given administration from bringing direct pressure on judges for some specific outcome. Bill Kambic How does spending time on trivial cases do that exactly ? It doesn't. The point Peter makes is valid. There have been similar cases in the UK where a trial judge found for the prosecution on the point of law but gave the defendant an absolute discharge and made the prosecution pay his costs after lecturing the prosecuting counsel about bringing such trivial matters before the court. This ****ed off the Crown Prosecution Service to be sure but was hardly evidence of the subservience of judges, quite the reverse in fact. Never suggested that British or Commonwealth judges don't have a measure of independance. Just that their power, and their degree of independance, flow from Parliament (if that's how the legislature is styled). I have also seen Federal and state court judges dismiss cases where the defendant was clearly guilty with costs to the state and give the prosecutor a first class "red ass" for wasting the court's time. I have also seen judges at both levels reject plea agreements because it was too lienient and force the case to trial. An independant judiciary is a Very Good Thing, but no guarantee against judicial silliness. Bill Kambic If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist, culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist, sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist, phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you to get over it. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
Judges here are not subject to job pressure from politicians, With all due respect, if you believe this then you have not spent much time down at the local court house!G but there is a certain amount of peer review, and their decisions are, of course, public knowledge. Ayup. How do you react to a coworker who's anal slowness keeps you from your family or who's nasty behaviour makes customers yell at you? Depends on the coworker!g Bill Kambic If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist, culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist, sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist, phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you to get over it. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
No, because that would deny the legal beagles another source of perpetual income Balderdash. It's because if you want to protect something an easy way is to make private possesion of that something, or anything associated with it, a crime. This means all the prosecution has to do is show that you possessed it. You don't even have to have actual knowledge of the possession. (I.E., if you lend your car to a friend and that friend smokes a joint in the car and leaves the roach in the ash tray you can be found guilty of simple possesion of MJ even if you could show that you did NOT have actual knowledge of the roach. The law presumes you are in possesion of all items in your vehicle. So if you possessed the vehicle you possessed the MJ. Next case.) --if we ruled out frivolous criminal charges and (worse yet) frivolous lawsuits, half of the esteemed bar would perish due to lack of business. Rubbish. They would just dream up new methods of employement. No to mention the enforcement branch bureaucrats out scratching for violations of these stupid laws--not a lot of need for the skills of your average "possum cop" in the private sector. Of course, we could carry out significant legal reforms...if the lawyers were not so entrenched in our political process. So the vicious cycle continues. Yeah, nobody likes lawyers 'till they hear the words, "You have the right to remain silent." Bill Kambic If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist, culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist, sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist, phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you to get over it. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Kambic" wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message No, because that would deny the legal beagles another source of perpetual income Balderdash. See what I mean? A simple tongue-in-cheek remark and the ambulance chasing lobby is out in arms... Brooks snip long winded response from a gent who forgot to turn his humor switch on this morning |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim E" wrote in message ... The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact. I live a few blocks from Boeing's chicken gun. No idea if they're using fresh or frozen. I live in Everett Wa near a fair size Boeing plant. Wonder if we have a gun locally? It's up in Marysville, behind the new Tulalip casino (unless the casino pushed it out). There's a Boeing test complex hidden behind the trees there. -- Zamboni |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
No, because that would deny the legal beagles another source of perpetual income Balderdash. See what I mean? A simple tongue-in-cheek remark and the ambulance chasing lobby is out in arms... Ah, you must have an almighty small tongue 'cause I couldn't see it in your cheek. Or maybe you were turning the other cheek? Or maybe we are speaking of the wrong set of cheeks!!!g But, since you claim it was there, I won't send you a bill for the legal advice!g Bill Kambic If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist, culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist, sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist, phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you to get over it. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
In t,
Kevin Brooks radiated into the WorldWideWait: Nor the USF&WS prohibition against said "indigenous" peoples even giving gifts that include such feathers to non-Indians (to use the polically incorrect term), which IMHO is just further stupidity heeped upon that imbecility you note. It's a Murphy's Law, but I can't recall which: No Subject, Topic or Idea is Too Trivial, Stupid or Inconsequential to Have a Law Passed Concerning It. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
In t,
Kevin Brooks radiated into the WorldWideWait: "Bill Kambic" wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message No, because that would deny the legal beagles another source of perpetual income Balderdash. See what I mean? A simple tongue-in-cheek remark and the ambulance chasing lobby is out in arms... LOL! |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Kambic" wrote:
A U.S. Federal judge holds a lifetime commission and can only be removed by impeachment. Very few have suffered this fate. Impeachment [i.e., House of Representatives charging a "crime"] *and* conviction by the Senate removing the judge. Impeachment doesn't result in removal. Only conviction of the offenses for which the official was impeached. One of the few judges impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate got his revenge. Election to the House of Representatives that impeached him. He's still serving, having been reelected regularly. -- OJ III [Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading. Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast] |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"Ogden Johnson III" wrote in message
A U.S. Federal judge holds a lifetime commission and can only be removed by impeachment. Very few have suffered this fate. Impeachment [i.e., House of Representatives charging a "crime"] *and* conviction by the Senate removing the judge. Impeachment doesn't result in removal. Only conviction of the offenses for which the official was impeached. The verb "to impeach" means to accuse, charge a liability on, or to sue. In the context in which it was in the Consititution of the U.S. (and in that of most states) it means a proceeding charging a public official with mis, mal, or non-feasance before a quasi-political court. You are "impeached" when a bill of charges is brought before the approprirate body. If you are convicted by the finders of fact there seems to be no other specific term of art (at least I can't find oneg). So "impeachment" may have a double, if sloppy, meaning. One of the few judges impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate got his revenge. Election to the House of Representatives that impeached him. He's still serving, having been reelected regularly. Ah, yes. Proving that impeachment is a political process, not a judicial conviction.g Bill Kambic If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist, culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist, sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist, phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you to get over it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
chicken thief | Del Rawlins | Home Built | 3 | April 3rd 04 03:20 AM |
Britain Reveals Secret Weapon - Chicken Powered Nuclear Bomb ! | Ian | Military Aviation | 0 | April 2nd 04 03:18 PM |
WWII 20mm cannon in planes | zxcv | Military Aviation | 13 | March 10th 04 10:52 AM |
Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ? | championsleeper | Military Aviation | 77 | March 3rd 04 04:11 AM |
Development of British cannon ammuniation during WW2 | Jukka O. Kauppinen | Military Aviation | 14 | December 29th 03 09:25 AM |