What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kepler said:
Of course, but I'd prefer a measure of honesty. .
Click to expand...

Wouldn't we all. I'll tell you what works for early childhood education, parents who give a F___.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kepler said:
Of course, but I'd prefer a measure of honesty. On the campaign trail: "vote for us and we'll defund early education." In power: "Well, you voted for us so now we're going to defund early education." Just be up front about everything.

In a two party system it might even be possible to be up front about everything, because, not to be brutal about it, where else are people gonna go? If both sides were honest, each side would be able to enact its policies 50% of the time. The problem of course is the side that's going to lose any given time is driven to become dishonest, so the other side becomes dishonest to stay ahead, so everybody loses and we're stuck with governments we despise because they lie to get elected. This must be some kind of Prisoner's Dilemma.
Click to expand...
given your liberal leanings, I'd take your comments about it working both ways a little more seriously if you'd reference Democrats being dishonest in not telling us they'll raise taxes or whatever on the campaign trail the way you take Republicans to task. Of course we all know that the public doesn't want to hear the truth (insert "you can't handle the truth" reference) so the politicians of both stripes don't tell them much of it. You see people occasionally be frank and honest on issues, and almost without exception they get clobbered for it. The American public gets as much honestly as they want to get.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Bob Gray said:
given your liberal leanings, I'd take your comments about it working both ways a little more seriously if you'd reference Democrats being dishonest in not telling us they'll raise taxes or whatever on the campaign trail the way you take Republicans to task. Of course we all know that the public doesn't want to hear the truth (insert "you can't handle the truth" reference) so the politicians of both stripes don't tell them much of it. You see people occasionally be frank and honest on issues, and almost without exception they get clobbered for it. The American public gets as much honestly as they want to get.
Click to expand...

Given my liberal leanings, I'm a lot less likely to harp on Dem failings, but I don't deny they exist and I try to usually add some goose-gander language when there's equivalence.

One thing that cheeses me off is that Congressmen who are going to get re-elected by 60 points -- hell, who may even be running unopposed -- are still often dishonest. They do so to hew to the party line, so I understand there is an indirect political cost in being honest, but at that point they lose all my sympathy: they aren't even lying to survive, they're lying to climb up one more rung within their party. Growl.

In a representative republic all the fault eventually lands squarely back with us, certainly.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

In news that should be shocking to no one but invariably will be to some, the Federal Court booted the challenge to Iowa's version of a Missouri Plan. Hopefully the Plaintiffs' attorneys take this as 3 strikes and they're out, since they've now lost in 3 different states with identical lawsuits. Somehow, I doubt it, though.
Des Moines Register commentary here
Judge Pratt's ruling here
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/03/us_supreme_court_rejects_14_mi.html

Man gets convicted because the prosecutors hide exculpatory evidence (blood evidence that he didnt commit the crime) to get a conviction, then use his conviction to get another conviction in a murder trial (he did not testify in the murder trial because that would have allowed the previous conviction into the record) and get him the death penalty, he spends 18 years in prison, 14 on death row in isolation and by random happenstance the evidence comes to life weeks before his execution. His convictions are thrown out, he sues the prosecutors office and wins a 14 million dollar settlement and our wonderful SCOTUS ovterturns the ruling (5-4 along party lines) saying there is no pattern of misconduct.

I am not big on punitive damages and big judgements...but the prosecuters involved not only withheld crucial evidence and obtained a conviction, but then compounded it by then getting a second conviction and death sentence and took away a guys freedom for **** near two decades. If anyone deserves to get some monetary retribution it is this guy. Once more, I have heard this is like the third or fourth such case (improper conduct out of this office) that has been overturned yet somehow that does not constitute a pattern according to Clarence Thomas, Scalia and Co.

Oh well...

edit: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/30/nation/la-na-court-prosecutors-20110330

Prosecutors also withheld more evidence...like eyewitness testimony.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Handyman said:
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/03/us_supreme_court_rejects_14_mi.html

Man gets convicted because the prosecutors hide exculpatory evidence (blood evidence that he didnt commit the crime) to get a conviction, then use his conviction to get another conviction in a murder trial (he did not testify in the murder trial because that would have allowed the previous conviction into the record) and get him the death penalty, he spends 18 years in prison, 14 on death row in isolation and by random happenstance the evidence comes to life weeks before his execution. His convictions are thrown out, he sues the prosecutors office and wins a 14 million dollar settlement and our wonderful SCOTUS ovterturns the ruling (5-4 along party lines) saying there is no pattern of misconduct.

I am not big on punitive damages and big judgements...but the prosecuters involved not only withheld crucial evidence and obtained a conviction, but then compounded it by then getting a second conviction and death sentence and took away a guys freedom for **** near two decades. If anyone deserves to get some monetary retribution it is this guy. Once more, I have heard this is like the third or fourth such case (improper conduct out of this office) that has been overturned yet somehow that does not constitute a pattern according to Clarence Thomas, Scalia and Co.

Oh well...

edit: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/30/nation/la-na-court-prosecutors-20110330

Prosecutors also withheld more evidence...like eyewitness testimony.
Click to expand...

The problem was that SCOTUS wasn't deciding all that. It was deciding the question of whether or not one instance of an attorney failing to turn over Brady materal (ie exculpatory evidence) allowed the accused to sue the office for filure to properly train their attorneys. Other instances of misconduct out of the office weren't at issue, since they pled "failure to train" - not "grossly incompetant office" or something similar.

Prosecutorial immunity already means you can't go after the prosecutor directly in a civil suit (unless his actions are like a cop instead of an attorney). Most you can do is file a bar complaint and get him disbarred. To get any money you have to go after the office and the city/county/state, and to do that you need to show more than isolated misconduct.

Frankly, I hate immunity cases, because they only come up when the cop/prosecutor screws up badly. And yet they'll get off relatively scott free in order to protect the position.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

unofan said:
The problem was that SCOTUS wasn't deciding all that. It was deciding the question of whether or not one instance of an attorney failing to turn over Brady materal (ie exculpatory evidence) allowed the accused to sue the office for filure to properly train their attorneys. Other instances of misconduct out of the office weren't at issue, since they pled "failure to train" - not "grossly incompetant office" or something similar.

Prosecutorial immunity already means you can't go after the prosecutor directly in a civil suit (unless his actions are like a cop instead of an attorney). Most you can do is file a bar complaint and get him disbarred. To get any money you have to go after the office and the city/county/state, and to do that you need to show more than isolated misconduct.

Frankly, I hate immunity cases, because they only come up when the cop/prosecutor screws up badly. And yet they'll get off relatively scott free in order to protect the position.
Click to expand...

Pardon the ignorance of this question, but independent of giving the guy damages, shouldn't the people who deliberately withheld evidence to get the conviction be tried and go to prison for, oh say, exactly as long as the guy they railroaded?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kepler said:
Pardon the ignorance of this question, but independent of giving the guy damages, shouldn't the people who deliberately withheld evidence to get the conviction be tried and go to prison for, oh say, exactly as long as the guy they railroaded?
Click to expand...

Criminal law isn't my specialty, but outside of a possible criminal contempt charge, I'm not sure what criminal activity the prosector might have committed. Malicious prosecution is generally a civil rights claim against the office, not a criminal one against the person. Maybe false imprisonment/kidnapping/something of that nature, though I doubt you'd be able to get a conviction on kidnapping. For instance, Mike Nifong got a day in jail for his actions on a criminal contempt charge.

More to the point, even in this age of "tough on crime" absurd sentences, the guy was wrongfully convicted of first robbery (I think), and then murder. Kidnapping is generally at that level, but little else besides murder or forcible rape is. So even if you could convict them of something, there's little to no chance the crime you'd get them on would carry anywhere near that kind of sentence. Generally speaking, you'd probably get them disbarred and maybe a month or so in jail at the high end. If you want damages, you need to go after the government itself.

And none of that was up before SCOTUS on this case, anyway; SCOTUS was dealing strictly with the civil side of things.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

unofan said:
And none of that was up before SCOTUS on this case, anyway; SCOTUS was dealing strictly with the civil side of things.
Click to expand...

I understand that last part. As my Con Law professor Mary Beth Norton was fond of saying, "the Supreme Court is about the law, not justice."
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

A few big cases still pending, nothing too surprising or overly controversial to have come down yet. Today's 5-4 decision saying state law allowing classwide arbitration in certain instances is pre-empted by the federal arbitration act is about the most controversial so far (as the dissent noted, what attorney will take a case against AT&T over $30 in damages?); the Phelps case was controversial on the facts, but not really the principle of law.

The video game case (Governator v. EMB) is likely going to be the most contentious yet, it's also far and away the oldest case remaining without an opinion.
Other big ones still sitting out there include another California one involving prison populations (Governator v. Plata), an early Arizona immigration law case with the question of federal pre-emption being at the forefront of the case (Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting), and, on the criminal side of things, whether police can create their own exigent circumstances to allow a warrantless search of a dwelling (Kentucky v. King).
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

The Court's officially done with oral arguments for the term, all that's left are the opinions.

2 cases remain from the November sitting, Governator v. Electronic Merchants (now Brown v. Elec. Merch.) (the video game case) and Flores v. U.S. (gender discrimination as applicable to the citizenship of a child born overseas). Also 2 justices without an opinion from November, Sotomeyer and Alito. Assuming they're each penning one of the two remaining decisions, the case probably could go either way. Alito dissented from the animal cruelty videos case last year when the majority struck down the law as overly broad. Presumably he'd feel the same way this time around (the main argument against it is vagueness, the companion to overbreadth), which means if he's writing it, it's a strong signal the law gets upheld to the consternation of video gamers everywhere. Sotomeyer seemed to lean against the statute at oral argument. After oral argument, Scalia, Ginsburg, Kagan (& Thomas by extension of Scalia) all seemed to lean in favor of striking down the law. Prediction is either a 7-2 in favor of striking the law penned by Sotomeyer (Alito and Breyer dissenting, possibly a concurring opinion by Scalia), or 5-4 upholding it with a strongly worded dissent from Scalia, joined by Kagan, Thomas, and Ginsburg.

No opinions expected for 2 weeks, when the Court will probably release 4-5 at once.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Supreme Court Denies Justice To Texas Cheerleader Who Refused To Cheer Her Alleged Rapist

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court declined to review the case of a recent Texas high school student who was kicked off her school’s cheerleading squad after she refused to chant the name of a basketball player who had allegedly raped her. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most conservative courts in the country, ruled last November that the victim — who is known only as H.S. — had no right to refuse to applaud her attacker because as a cheerleader in uniform, she was an agent of the school. To add insult to injury, the Fifth Circuit dismissed her case as “frivolous” and sanctioned the girl, forcing her family to pay the school district’s $45,000 legal fees.

According to court documents, H.S. was 16 when she was allegedly raped at a house party by one of her school’s star athletes, Rakheem Bolton. Bolton was arrested, but by pleading guilty to misdemeanor assault, he received a reduced sentence of probation and community service. Bolton was allowed to return to school and resume his place on the basketball team. Four months later, H.S. was cheering with her squad at a game when Bolton lined up to take a free throw. The squad wanted to do a cheer that included his name, but H.S. refused, choosing instead to stand silently with her arms folded.

“I didn’t want to have to say his name and I didn’t want to cheer for him,” she later told reporters. “I just didn’t want to encourage anything he was doing.”

Several school officials of the “sports obsessed” small town took issue with H.S.’s silence, and ordered her to cheer for Bolton. When H.S. refused again, she was expelled from the cheerleading squad. Her family decided to sue school officials and the district. Their lawyer argued that H.S.’s right to exercise free expression had been violated and that students shouldn’t be punished for not complying with “insensitive and unreasonable directions.”
Click to expand...

First off, gotta love a system of "justice" that turns rape into misdemeanor assault. :rolleyes:
Second of all, frivolous? Seriously?
Third, this story makes me sick.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

unofan said:
Also, it was frivilous from a legal standpoint. Bad facts make for bad law, but there's no right to be a cheerleader.
Click to expand...
Wait - this was in Texas. Are you sure that's not a right?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

From what I remember in that case, I was more disappointed in the school that a kid that faced rape charges and pled down to misdemeanor assault remained on the team. My high school had people suspended for 1/4 of a season for minor in possession of alcohol, much less an actual crime. But as mentioned, it's Texas, and without high school sports, they'd be stuck having sex with oxen or something.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

bronconick said:
From what I remember in that case, I was more disappointed in the school that a kid that faced rape charges and pled down to misdemeanor assault remained on the team. My high school had people suspended for 1/4 of a season for minor in possession of alcohol, much less an actual crime. But as mentioned, it's Texas, and without high school sports, they'd be stuck having sex with oxen or something.
Click to expand...

Although that's how the Think Progress story makes it sound , (shockingly) that's not what actually happened. The party happened in 2008, Bolton was arrested and suspended from the team. When a grand jury failed to return an indictment in January of 2009, he was let back on the team. With the courts refusing to convict the kid, I'm not sure what exactly the school was supposed to do legally except let him back on the team. The not cheering incident happened the following month.

In November of 2009, when a grand jury did indict him, the school kicked him off the football team and kicked him out of school. He didn't actually plea to anything until 2010.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top