|
El_Elegante posted:When would she have needed to step down to keep her vacancy from being the Merrick Garland bullshit all over again? People strongly pushed her to resign in 2012 on the fear that Republicans would take the Senate in 2014 and that precise scenario would play out.
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:29 |
|
|
Hoshi posted:It's okay she just needs to stick it out 6 more years, McCain style McCain's mom is still alive and rbg assumes she can pass her
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/trump-attorney-general-sessions-unconstitutional.html#click=https://t.co/1QpvgtLVX1
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/trump-attorney-general-sessions-unconstitutional.html#click=https://t.co/1QpvgtLVX1 Its funny how often this comes right now with wait, how is this going to actually be enforced Apropos of nothing , as more and more states legalize weed, how do searches work when in other states? In this very not germane to me hypo: Michigan has legal weed. Let's say I go buy some there (which won't happen til 2020) and then drive back through Indiana to Illinois. Indiana troopers are hyped up to pull over every single illinois plate and say they smell weed to do a search Does illinois having legal medical marijuana matter? I assume no, but what if Indiana had it? But since you're not an Indiana resident, wouldn't that not matter? Let's say I get pulled over in Illinois , same " I smell weed". Is this no longer sufficient when medical marijuana is legal? What if my friend with medical marijuana card is in the car?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Let's say I get pulled over in Illinois , same " I smell weed". Is this no longer sufficient when medical marijuana is legal? What if my friend with medical marijuana card is in the car? I assume that this is reasonable suspicion for operating under the influence, much as if the officer smelled alcohol. mastershakeman posted:Michigan has legal weed. Let's say I go buy some there (which won't happen til 2020) and then drive back through Indiana to Illinois. Indiana troopers are hyped up to pull over every single illinois plate and say they smell weed to do a search It's still illegal to possess something illegal in a state if you bought it legally in another state and even if you're not a resident. Possession is the crime here, not the purchase. For a particularly hilarious example, some southern states would arrest women for bringing sex toys into their state in the not so distant past, and charge them with intent to distribute if there were more than four or so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 22:10
|
|
|
Ignoring the Indiana part for now: It's legal to possess weed in Michigan It's legal to possess weed in Illinois if you're a medical marijuana card holder It's legal to possess a firearm in Michigan It's legal to possess a firearm in Illinois if you're a firearms owner identification card holder It's my understanding that for guns, the cops don't have probable cause to search you/your car for a gun because they don't have any reason to think you aren't permitted to. Is this not the same for weed? As to under the influence, the smell of alcohol in the car would be open container violation and allow a search for that I think. See what I'm getting at?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Ignoring the Indiana part for now: this exact circumstance probably comes up with vicodin or other misused pharmaceuticals, so I assume there's caselaw directly on point - though for that, not having it in a pill bottle with your name on it is suspicious so maybe not
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
After losing his bench in a Democratic sweep, Harris County [TX] Juvenile Court Judge Glenn Devlin released nearly all of the youthful defendants that appeared in front him on Wednesday morning, simply asking the kids whether they planned to kill anyone before letting them go. "He was releasing everybody," said public defender Steven Halpert, who watched the string of surprising releases. "Apparently he was saying that's what the voters wanted." https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Promise-not-to-kill-anyone-After-losing-election-13371485.php?t=5dcf321ab9
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 06:11
|
|
|
He’s also apparently refusing to show up for work now
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 06:32
|
|
|
What a juvenile court judge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 06:39
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:After losing his bench in a Democratic sweep, Harris County [TX] Juvenile Court Judge Glenn Devlin released nearly all of the youthful defendants that appeared in front him on Wednesday morning, simply asking the kids whether they planned to kill anyone before letting them go. Unironically good
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
It's kind of remarkable. A few state courts of appeals in Texas had complete turnovers too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 14:35
|
|
|
Lol great system where you can have complete turnover of the judiciary based solely on the whim of the hooting, oinking herd. Sure a bunch of poc women won this time, but that'll just be undone by fox and local news running non stop stories about white women getting murdered by brown immigrants and activist liberal judges not doing enough to execute them and close the borders and otherwise maga
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 15:10
|
|
|
But... I thought the election was a huge GOP victory and a complete repudiation of progressives? Is the media full of poo poo? Say it ain’t so
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:Lol great system where you can have complete turnover of the judiciary based solely on the whim of the hooting, oinking turd I fixed this to show you the Trump alternative to democracy
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 15:13
|
|
|
Sure Republicans will win those seats back but they’ll have to put real money in to judicial elections. In Texas. That’s lol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 15:34
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Sure Republicans will win those seats back but they’ll have to put real money in to judicial elections. In Texas. That’s lol. Nobody, at all, knows who they're voting for in judicial elections and in partisan judicial elections it's pure partisan voting. Those judgeships will automatically flip back if Republicans can win those cities in an election where those judges are on the ballot, and will stay Democratic unless and until that happens. Those are just freebies for getting more votes on the positions people actually care about to turn out to vote on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
Judicial elections are a loving shitshow, though I can't decide if I like the idea that Texas has overtly political party listings for judges.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
Huh. Texas is weird.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
Look at these quaint yokels thinking they have real elections for judges. Everyone knows you gotta have special interests drop millions per candidate to make it a real race
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
nm posted:Judicial elections are a loving shitshow, though I can't decide if I like the idea that Texas has overtly political party listings for judges. I think judicial elections should generally be abolished, but I think as long as you're having them that partisan judicial elections are the way to go. Nonpartisan judicial elections simply ensures that you're having a completely uninformed vote. If you want voters to make the decision, give them the piece of information most relevant to them to make the decision. I'm not going to look up the judges on my ballot and I'm a lawyer who likes politics. But if you tell me one is a Republican and one is a Democrat, I can make a relatively informed decision that I'd rather have the Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 16:28
|
|
|
Typed up a motion yesterday telling a judge he was wrong and he shrugged his shoulders at the jailhouse court this morning and agreed. I then put the wrong judge's name on the bottom of the order. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Nov 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think judicial elections should generally be abolished, but I think as long as you're having them that partisan judicial elections are the way to go. Nonpartisan judicial elections simply ensures that you're having a completely uninformed vote. If you want voters to make the decision, give them the piece of information most relevant to them to make the decision. I'm not going to look up the judges on my ballot and I'm a lawyer who likes politics. But if you tell me one is a Republican and one is a Democrat, I can make a relatively informed decision that I'd rather have the Democrat. Florida's appointed judges go up for retention elections periodically. They're just listed as "Should X judge be retained? Y/N" No one has ever been removed from the bench in a retention election in florida.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Florida's appointed judges go up for retention elections periodically. They're just listed as "Should X judge be retained? Y/N" TN has the same system. One judge was not retained.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Florida's appointed judges go up for retention elections periodically. They're just listed as "Should X judge be retained? Y/N" Retention elections are worse. The only way you lose a retention election is if you rule against someone with enough money to make an issue of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
The nature of judicial power also screws with judicial elections. In Louisiana it’s exceedingly rare for an incumbent judge to face a challenger unless there has been obvious criminal conduct or corruption. Very hard to unseat a judge, and it’s essentially a death sentence for a lawyer’s career to go up against one—you are ensuring you will never get a fair shake from that judge and probably the rest of the bench in that district ever again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Retention elections are worse. The only way you lose a retention election is if you rule against someone with enough money to make an issue of it. The TN judge lost because she overturned a death sentence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:The TN judge lost because she overturned a death sentence. That's actually the most common way to lose a retention election, yep. Any pro-criminal defendant ruling is going to come back to bite you if someone wants to do so, especially in a death penalty case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Retention elections are worse. The only way you lose a retention election is if you rule against someone with enough money to make an issue of it. Alaska just ousted its first judge since, like, '62 in a retention election. He was a pretty great judge. He accepted some lovely plea agreement that conformed to the lovely law our lovely legislature passed a few years ago, and that pissed off the sex assault advocate group. They were right to be pissed off, it was a lovely plea agreement, but that's because the law that makes kidnapping and felony assault non-jailable offenses is lovely. So retaining him became a referendum against the very unpopular law, and he lost.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
There was a judge in San Bernardino who lost an election. The alleged reason was he denied a restraining order against a woman who was later murdered by the person he denied the RO against. He also made some poor choices of wording on the record. However, he made the choice words because she was clearly forum shopping and had had the same RO denied by a different judge with the exact same facts days before. The second judge had to deny it under the law. No one tried to challenge the original judge, just this one because he wasn't seen as tough on crime and had challenged the DAs on things. Judicial elections are a sham. Also some of the most pro-prosecution judges are dyed in the wool dens, while some of the most fair judges I've had for criminal were so right wing it made my head hurt. The dems are a bit better on sentencing after trial, but for pleas, motions, and fair trials, the righwingers who are skeptical of government are often awesome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
On the other hand, I stand a better chance of becoming a judge than I would under appointments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
BigHead posted:the law that makes kidnapping and felony assault non-jailable offenses Can you tell us more about this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
Concept of politically partisan judges is probably more corrosive to the legitimacy of the court than just about anything I can think of other than them just openly taking money to decide cases.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:Concept of politically partisan judges is probably more corrosive to the legitimacy of the court than just about anything I can think of other than them just openly taking money to decide cases. I don’t think it’s all that corrosive at the trial level. Trial courts aren’t the last say on pretty much any political issue, so if they gently caress those cases up the appellate levels are problematic if they’re partisan. For most litigants and criminal defendants the trial judge’s politics aren’t going to have an impact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
All levels of Texas courts are partial elections.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
Trial courts no I agree, especially because they do all kinds of poo poo anyways. Higher though I do think that. See esp: Beer bro's conduct in the hearing that saw him appointed for life
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:Concept of politically partisan judges is probably more corrosive to the legitimacy of the court than just about anything I can think of other than them just openly taking money to decide cases. Disagree. There are so many choices a trial judge makes that are either non-appealable or "harmless error." That said, California's entire judiciary is subject to retention elections. Almost all of Jerry Brown's first round CA supreme court bench was kicked out by the voters in the 80s for not rubberstamping every conviction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:Trial courts no I agree, especially because they do all kinds of poo poo anyways. Yeah, the swearing partisan vengeance thing is a problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:29 |
|
|
Tokelau All Star posted:Can you tell us more about this? Under the new law, known as SB91, everyone arrested presumptively gets released on an ankle monitor for bail. The ankle monitor bail monitoring is a complete joke. The only requirement is that you actually have an ankle monitor, not that you pee test or breath test or house arrest or, you know, stop committing crimes. The State pays the monitoring fees for this too. Also victims weren't consulted about the bail release, which is great when the guy who just put a gun to your temple and threatened to shoot you gets let out on ankle monitor within five minutes of being booked into jail without anyone letting you know. And multiple cases going at once still qualified for presumptive release. So you could get arrested for vehicle theft, get ankle monitor bail, leave jail and steal another car, get arrested again, get released on the same ankle monitor you are currently wearing, and steal another car, etc etc. It's just get arrested, go to the jail, telephone call to the magistrate, slap ankle monitor on. Five minutes. SB91 also set up a system whereby people could apply for restrictive ankle monitor instead of jail. That system was sort of designed for rural bush communities where there are no jails, or work release people, that sort of thing. That system was supposed to mimic real house arrest, with a dedicated monitoring agent. SB91 conveniently said that the lovely bail release ankle monitor counted as day-for-day jail credit ankle monitor. So if you were on bail release for six months prior to sentencing, that lopped six months off your sentence. And, finally, SB91 said that if you were sentenced to 2 or less to serve (i.e. 4 years with 2 suspended), you were presumptively approved for house arrest ankle monitor to serve your "jail" time. SB91 also lowered the presumptive range for every crime. B felonies (home invasion burglary, armed robbery, herion dealing, Assault 2) are all 0-2 for a first offense and, uh, 1-3 or 2-4 on a second offense. And it's stupidly easy for someone to spend two years on bail. I can't remember the presumptive range for A felonies off the top of my head but it's the same thing. 2-4 for manslaughter or Assault 1, served on an ankle monitor. Woo. BigHead fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Nov 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:22
|
|