Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: A COMITY OF ERRORS.BAKER v. JOHN, [very excelent read]...^i^

Expand Messages
  • Birdman^i^
    Coercion is what it s graduated too at this point and is what you have is agencies under the Executive where due process and equal protection become a roll of
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 4, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Coercion is what it's graduated too at this point and is what you have is agencies under the Executive where due process and equal protection become a roll of the dice where Judges legislate the game...this is where we are today.
       
      It's refreshing to see some one mention another portion of the whole picture, "Sheriff", now all we know are "Hwy Patrol or State Trooper".  Where have all the flowers gone?
       
      Who can weave in and out of constitution at will? If law is good for one it should work or all equally the same, without compromise...even if we don't like the out come, personally dictating end results.
       
      Judges aren't dictators but impartial expeditor's of justice based on standing in law. You apply law according to facts established with standing as opposed to controlling standing by word games. Protecting standing is what self determinations about, without it, it's not self governance.
       
      Like it or not we all have to follow law's instead of legislate policies around it while appearing as having clean hands...Birdman^i^

      Steve Russell <swrussel@...> wrote:
      Judges do indeed fear disrepute for a simple reason. Our reputation is
      all we have. No armies, no guns.

      While we can order the Sheriff to run a specific errand, there is no way
      the system survives on coercion. The only way it survives is on respect.

      That means, among other things, treating like cases alike whether or not
      we agree with the result. Major changes in direction are generally best
      left to the legislature.

      While, for example, Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade appear
      from the outside to be major changes, they were not in legal context.

      Nobody remembers how many ways Planned Parenthood attempted to litigate
      the Connecticut statute that made it a felony to distribute birth
      control information before, finally, the state was dumb enough to
      prosecute a medical doctor for giving a condom to a married person
      without uttering the magic words. Once that happened, it was a straight
      shot to Roe v. Wade.

      Similarly, Brown was the culmination of a series of decisions starting
      before WWII that chipped away at the absurdity of separate but equal.
      The cases that became known as Brown were like the last jenga moves.

      However, it took years to explain that to the public. In the meantime,
      judges took some hits.

      Birdman^i^ wrote:

      > Open attachment to read...Birdman^i^
      >
      > Love Is The CornerStone Holding All Joy^i^
      > A Man With Wings Is Truly An Angel^i^
      > Blessings Of Love...Birdman^i^
      >
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/suijuriscourtangels/
      >
      > “What kind of a legal system is this where we're going to design our
      > rules to encourage guilty people to plead - or innocent people to
      > plead guilty? It's crazy.” Justice Scalia
      >




      Love Is The CornerStone Holding All Joy^i^
      A Man With Wings Is Truly An Angel^i^
      Blessings Of Love...Birdman^i^
       
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/suijuriscourtangels/
       
      “What kind of a legal system is this where we're going to design our rules to encourage guilty people to plead - or innocent people to plead guilty? It's crazy.” Justice Scalia

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.