|
Sheikh Djibouti posted:Many thanks, EW, that's exactly what I was looking for. If I get a chance later today I'll total up the population covered by all circuits but 5-8 and post it Wikipedia has that already done. 5–8 cover about a third of the population.
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
quote:E: beaten? I can't see an image in the post above mine, but maybe it's just the device I'm on. I was commenting on how large his map is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Sheikh Djibouti posted:Many thanks, EW, that's exactly what I was looking for. If I get a chance later today I'll total up the population covered by all circuits but 5-8 and post it, but just looking at the map I would think Democratic leaning circuits would cover a relatively substantial majority of the population. Nevermind all the rest of the circuits, the 9th circuit alone has a huge percentage of the population just by virtue of having California and... well, basically any other state. That's why there's been so much handwringing about breaking it up, it has a disproportional population impact.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Fell Fire posted:You joke, but I remember when reading the oral arguments for Safford Unified School District v. Redding (school strip search of a thirteen year old) that all the old men on the court were reminiscing about dumb locker room antics. It really seemed like the case was going to rule the searches as constitutional and I think Justice Ginsburg must have spoken to them privately. I seem to recall Scalia being absolutely brutal to the school district during arguments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
frood posted:Nevermind all the rest of the circuits, the 9th circuit alone has a huge percentage of the population just by virtue of having California and... well, basically any other state. That's why there's been so much handwringing about breaking it up, it has a disproportional population impact. It's also so big that an "en banc" review (where all judges hear the case instead of three random ones) actually is just a larger random panel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
From the perspective of our law-talkin' goons, what would be the advantages and disadvantages of breaking up the 9th? And, side question, what are the proposed models for breaking it up, and how much support do they have from various quarters?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:From the perspective of our law-talkin' goons, what would be the advantages and disadvantages of breaking up the 9th? And, side question, what are the proposed models for breaking it up, and how much support do they have from various quarters? The main blocking point is who decides who goes where and if there's any new vacancies. Circuits have split before so they'd just follow that model, but it's hard to do without a single party in control of the White House/Congress/Senate since it gives a lot of power to manipulate the makeup of both new courts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Circuits have split before so they'd just follow that model quote:In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The main blocking point is who decides who goes where and if there's any new vacancies. Circuits have split before so they'd just follow that model, but it's hard to do without a single party in control of the White House/Congress/Senate since it gives a lot of power to manipulate the makeup of both new courts. Previous models won't help too much, I don't think. The two prior times they split circuits it was always along state boundaries and was always roughly dividing it so the work went 50-50. The problem is that California alone handles at least 50% of the caseload, so either the 13h is going to just be California or they have to split it somehow, because the concept of having one state be an entire circuit is a bit of an anathema to Congress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Previous models won't help too much, I don't think. There's no way you split a state between different circuits. You can't have half of the state with a different law than the other half. You'd absolutely make the California Circuit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:There's no way you split a state between different circuits. You can't have half of the state with a different law than the other half. You'd absolutely make the California Circuit. The alternative, if you were dead-set against making a state a single circuit, would be to combine California with a low population state. Wyoming would be ideal, but they're not going to move it out of the 10th just to make this work. You could probably make Alaska work, though. An extra 738,000 people on top of the ~39 million already in California is one step up from a rounding error.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Four justices isn't a majority. Do you actually have to have 5 justices to call it a majority? I get that it's a 4 justice opinion and thus less precedence value
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Do you actually have to have 5 justices to call it a majority? I get that it's a 4 justice opinion and thus less precedence value You have to have 5 justices to call it a majority if there are 8 or 9 justices participating in the case, yes. If there are only 7 justices participating, 4 would be enough for a majority opinion. I think there's at least one case like that right now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
ulmont posted:If there are only 7 justices participating, 4 would be enough for a majority opinion. I think there's at least one case like that right now? Fisher v. University of Texas
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
New 9th would be CA, HI, AK (no other circuit has less than three states) and the Pacific territories, with the 12th Circuit being the remainder with a new HQ in Seattle, Las Vegas or Phoenix.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Fisher v. University of Texas Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust was the one I was thinking of (Alito recused), but yes, Fisher too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
This seems like a great signal: A Near-Epiphany at the Supreme Court: The justices come close to recognizing the perilous state of the American public-defense system quote:In a 5-3 decision in Luis v. United States on Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court forbade the government from seizing legitimate funds defendants could use to hire a lawyer of their choice. Along the way, the justices came close to asking a more troubling question: Does America’s underfunded public-defender system meet the Sixth Amendment’s standards for adequate legal counsel?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Has the issue of the inadequacy of the public defender system ever come before SCOTUS?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
alnilam posted:Has the issue of the inadequacy of the public defender system ever come before SCOTUS? if it ever will, it will be through the mess going on in Louisiana right now
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
alnilam posted:Has the issue of the inadequacy of the public defender system ever come before SCOTUS? I emailed a couple colleagues who do legal aid advocacy to ask, but I think the answer's no - or at least, not since the case 50-odd years ago that forced them to establish the system in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
alnilam posted:Has the issue of the inadequacy of the public defender system ever come before SCOTUS? If you can get something appealed to the Supreme Court, it is relatively unlikely you have inappropriate counsel, so . . . But I expect that to be quoted in a lot of appellate briefs real soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:If you can get something appealed to the Supreme Court, it is relatively unlikely you have inappropriate counsel, so . . . That Muslim inmate from a term or two ago was pro se right up until the SCOTUS granted his petition. I think someone argued for him before the SCOTUS though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:That Muslim inmate from a term or two ago was pro se right up until the SCOTUS granted his petition. I think someone argued for him before the SCOTUS though. I read his briefs there were at least 1l quality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I read his briefs there were at least 1l quality. Weren't they written on yellow legal pad paper in pen? Hope the dude gets a chance once he is out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:That Muslim inmate from a term or two ago was pro se right up until the SCOTUS granted his petition. I think someone argued for him before the SCOTUS though. Yeah it happens but how many successful out of how many filed? The successful pro se litigant at that level is a unicorn. More to the point, though, if you've successfully appealed to the Supreme Court as a pro se litigant, you arguably had access to competent counsel the entire time -- yourself (even if you were actually represented by an incompetent public defender at trial, that was your choice to accept that representation). Therefore, at least as to the particular appellant, the issue is moot. I don't know enough about criminal law to know if this argument has validity -- it's facile as gently caress -- but it seems like an obvious barrier, and the Court has in the past accepted incredibly facile arguments when it suited policy goals (as the entire doctrine of asset forfeiture demonstrates). Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Weren't they written on yellow legal pad paper in pen? Hope the dude gets a chance once he is out. http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Muhammad-Cert-Petition.pdf
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/atlblog/status/715626458576785410
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Leave it as ASSoL so it can easily be pronounced as "rear end in a top hat"
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
 The loving Koch brothers bought a law school rename for Scalia. Burn this country to the ground.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
That has to be early april fool's, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:If you can get something appealed to the Supreme Court, it is relatively unlikely you have inappropriate counsel, so . . . Not really. The appellate counsel just offers to represent someone at the appellate level after they defended themselves or had a public defender at trial, appealing based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Happens all the time in the death penalty context.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
actually lolling irl
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Not really. The appellate counsel just offers to represent someone at the appellate level after they defended themselves or had a public defender at trial, appealing based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Happens all the time in the death penalty context. But death penalty cases are getting rarer (thankfully) and outside of death penalty cases there is very, very little public assistance out there to provide attorneys for criminal defendants at the appellate level. (To my knowledge that's something that's really only available in death penalty cases). There are a lot of pro se criminal appeals, and they almost always -- ninety nine out of a hundred or worse -- go nowhere. Of course when we're talking Supreme Court the numbers may be so small anyway that even the relatively small pool of death penalty cases is relatively large compared to the pool of cases that reach the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
To use British terminology were not talking about ineffective barristers. We're talking about ineffective solicitors. That's not exact really. euphronius fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Apr 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:But death penalty cases are getting rarer (thankfully) and outside of death penalty cases there is very, very little public assistance out there to provide attorneys for criminal defendants at the appellate level. (To my knowledge that's something that's really only available in death penalty cases). There are a lot of pro se criminal appeals, and they almost always -- ninety nine out of a hundred or worse -- go nowhere. Yeah, but you only need one - and a lot of the biglaw firms doing those death penalty appeals would murder someone themselves to argue that case at the supreme court.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That has to be early april fool's, right? https://www2.gmu.edu/news/200906 quote:The Antonin Scalia Scholarship, named after the late Supreme Court Justice, will be awarded based on excellent academic credentials. Honestly if I hadn't read it from GMU's website I would have said it was too blatant for it to be anything other than April Fool's. I hadn't known anything about this Holton guy but assumed he was some kind of shitbag until I read up on him. Maybe they don't know who he is 
FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Apr 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
I think at the end of the day "the entire public defender system in America is so drastically underfunded that thousands of people are effectively not getting counsel" is one of those arguments that is at the same time obviously true to the casual observer and an argument whose legitimacy courts are almost never going to recognize due to the inherent biases and nature of the legal system. It's akin to acknowledging that the drug war was a horrible crime against humanity, or that probably 5-10% of convicted criminals are in fact innocent and wrongfully convicted, or that the justice system as a whole is so racist that it's an open question as to whether or not it's possible for a black male to get a fair trail. If the court system acknowledged its truth it would delegitimize the courts themselves as institutions and judges themselves as professionals, so it's not going to happen (or at least not without a much more radically left wing Supreme Court than we have now). Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Apr 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
There's also the problem that courts are loath to impose positive rights, and saying the government must spend more money on public defenders is different from saying the government can't freeze particular assets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
The issue with underfunded public defenders is a common one throughout common law countries with adversarial systems. Does anyone know if the civil law non adversarial systems have the same issues? Or if they do, are they to the extent that we do?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
Chamale posted:There's also the problem that courts are loath to impose positive rights, and saying the government must spend more money on public defenders is different from saying the government can't freeze particular assets. The justice system is the one area of the law where they've gone full hog with positive rights though? I mean, this is the system where you have the right to force 6-12 of your peers, under the threat of law, to serve without pay in judging your case. It's the system where you have a right to a public defender, period. It's a system practically dominated by positive rights that would be seen as egregious violations in other contexts. I don't doubt that they don't want to look at it too closely, but I don't think it's a fear of positive rights holding them back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 02:56
|
|
