Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

I guess I'll also point out that some conservatives take massive issue with the complete lack of diversity amongst University and College faculty. There's zero question that the predicate is true. I personally only marginally take issue with it to the extent folks are actually being denied opportunity based on it, and even then it's like, meh. Conservatives tend to self-select out of those position/liberals self-select in and it settles out as it does. Change your priorities and quit whining if it's a concern.

Meanwhile...

In a petition to the English department, Yale undergraduates declare that a required two-semester seminar on Major English Poets is a danger to their well-being.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436268/yale-students-major-english-poets-curriculum-has-too-many-white-males

[SeattleLionsFan]

SLF:

Since your examples are criminal, the Court's role is relatively minimal. It rules on evidentiary issues. Juries by and large decide the case. Jurors, of course, come from the community. Given that the vast majority of AA crime occurs in AA communities, AA defendants are almost always tried before a jury comprised of a significant number of AAs.

The question you don't ask is: What is the effect of having a judge that profoundly disagrees with your political ideology? Heh.



Yeah, some of us would call the proper body for making those decisions CONGRESS and suggest it is representative. To that end, it's worth noting that the Court has deferred to Congress wrt Obamacare at every turn (including tax-fine). As it should.

But, as far it "only [being] right" that Courts be diverse, we disagree. As an attorney and as a citizen, I'll always take ability over race/gender/ethnicity or whatever other diversity one wants to drum up.

I guess I reject the concept that it is an either/or sitch. You can find able and honest folks that have diverse backgrounds. Good lord knows there are enough shitty old white male judges.

Iam, I know you are a lawyer as well. I've worked for judges at several levels, and have an active litigation practice for the past 10 years. I stand by my assertion that judges have an enormous amount of discretion.

[Ghengis Jon]

On the lighter side, this is what happened when Patriots fan Jim Podanoffsky posed for a photo w/Goodell at the Jim Kelly Golf Tournament.

[hack]

LOL!!!

[froot loops]

The Commiserate looked very healthy before his death.

[hack]

I guess I reject the concept that it is an either/or sitch. You can find able and honest folks that have diverse backgrounds. Good lord knows there are enough shitty old white male judges.

Iam, I know you are a lawyer as well. I've worked for judges at several levels, and have an active litigation practice for the past 10 years. I stand by my assertion that judges have an enormous amount of discretion.

Talent very ably argued that you don't get to escape the laws of physics because you're from East Cleveland. Which to me ultimately speaks to the fact that there are arts and there are sciences. Law is not a science. But I'm not a lawyer and you guys can more ably discuss that than me.

(I would, however, argue maybe not East Cleveland but certainly some people from Ohio certainly think the laws of the NCAA don't have to be followed.)

[iam416]

SLF:

Good talk, man.

Hack:

Well-played.

Also, I'd agree diversity of thought/perspective/experience/whatever become more valuable and even perhaps justifiable as one slides from Pure Science toward Pure Art on the Science-Art continuum of vocations.

[SeattleLionsFan]

I read an article by Judge Posner a few years back that argued eloquently for appointing more non-lawyers to the SC because of the perspective they would bring to the job. It was a fascinating read.

[hack]

Also, I'd agree diversity of thought/perspective/experience/whatever become more valuable and even perhaps justifiable as one slides from Pure Science toward Pure Art on the Science-Art continuum of vocations.


I think that argument relies on a certain degree of cooperation that one ought to offer if one wants it offered in return. In lieu, maybe you find more of a sympathetic ear within the Faculty of Continuua.

[hack]

I read an article by Judge Posner a few years back that argued eloquently for appointing more non-lawyers to the SC because of the perspective they would bring to the job. It was a fascinating read.

Got a link? As a layman I recognize that the law, as lawfully applied, won't always jive with common sense. I don't have a feel for the threshold there, but injecting some common sense makes intuitive sense to me.

[WingsFan]

Patriots fan Jim Podanoffsky posed for a photo w/Goodell at the Jim Kelly Golf Tournament.

LOL Frame worthy for Tom Brady!

[Ghengis Jon]

...As a layman I recognize that the law, as lawfully applied, won't always jive with common sense. I don't have a feel for the threshold there...

True dat. My problem with the legal system is the system's tendency to go for the letter of the law, rather than the spirit. Spirit is vague, but not if you apply common sense. Appeals invariably are settled on the letter of the law. Which is why lawyers are such proficient word weasels. They aren't very successful in their profession if they aren't. I don't say that as a slam, my father was an attorney and then a federal judge. I say that as an observation, spirit (common sense) sadly plays a negligible role, except occasionally in sentencing.

Equal share for the blame of our uneven legal system falls into the laps of the pols that write the laws.

[CGVT]

How did we get to the point that an ass-clown like Trump could even be considered to be the President of the United States?

WTF America?

[ame]https://youtu.be/5brIpJNaHRY[/ame]

[UMStan White]

"Iam, I know you are a lawyer as well. I've worked for judges at several levels, and have an active litigation practice for the past 10 years. I stand by my assertion that judges have an enormous amount of discretion."

I've purposely stayed out of this discussion because I really don't feel many people here have any clue as to what goes on in a courtroom or in litigation. Seattlefan's comments demand affirmation. I am in front of a judge approximately 100 days a year. I have been a litigator for over 35 years. I started trying cases my junior year of law school and have been doing so since then. I have been in front of over 1000 judges that have spanned the complete ideological spectrum. EVERY JUDGE I HAVE BEEN IN FRONT OF HAS A BIAS. Some judges show that bias more than others. One can't be a trial lawyer without that basic understanding. The manipulation of filing rules for cases to secure a desired judge and whether to litigate in Federal Court or State court is one of the most important decisions a trial lawyer must make right from the get go. Seatlefan is 100% correct!! Judges have tremendous discretion so much more than merely ruing on evidentiary issues or "applying the law". Judges use their discretion to effect outcomes. Anybody who thinks differently are living in lala land. (it might surprise people here that for someone who is definately on the left, the best trials and outcomes I have had have been in front of true conservatives (not reactionaries). I'll take a true conservative judge over a liberal leaning judge every time. A true conservative believes in due process. A bias nevertheless. Discretion affects outcome. Now that is a "rule" that challenges the absolute nature of engineering.

[iam416]

That wasn't my experience, but I was only in Federal Court, and probably only before 20-25 judges. They were generally fair and mother of them tried. And most had no affinity for patent cases...did all they could to clear the case from their docket.

State court is a whole different animal.