Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«898 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Bad Munki
Nov 4, 2008

We're all mad here.



Leperflesh posted:

So how much better than the law degree judges is she? I'm gonna guess she's at least twice as good a judge.

Cosmetologist judgeís account spotted, proceed with caution

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Nice piece of fish
Jan 29, 2008






Ultra Carp

Leperflesh posted:

So how much better than the law degree judges is she? I'm gonna guess she's at least twice as good a judge.

She believes that law should build on a solid foundation

Nice piece of fish
Jan 29, 2008






Ultra Carp

It's important to avoid concealing the facts, but accentuate and highlight the truth

BigHead
Jul 25, 2003
Huh?

Nap Ghost

euphronius posted:

There isn’t any different between elected and appointed judges

If you have any amount of giveashitattude about the subject, Alaska has the best judicial selection process. We have a panel of 7 respected people (3 attorneys, 3 civs that are upstanding, and the CJ) that solicits applications for judicial openings. The panel then coordinates with the bar association to send out a survey to all members of the bar. All other attorneys in the state have an opportunity to rate the applicants in several categories like temperament, experience, etc. The survey responders can also, if they wish, leave either an anonymous or signed comment.

The council then solicits more in depth comments from several opposing counsels and judges in the applicant's recent cases. Attorneys vying for judgships, therefore, need to play nice and impress the other parties to litigation. Then there is a brutal interview.

The council then nominates two to four-ish people for the judgeship. The governor is constitutionally required to appoint from the nominated pool.

As far as I'm aware it's among the great systems for judicial appointment. There are downsides though, like try being a criminal attorney who specializes in tough cases. 50 count SAM or juvie waiver murder attorneys (prosecution or defense) need to fight and fight hard, so they always lose the popularity contest despite being the most compote t and dedicated attorneys in the state. But of all the imperfect options it's the lease imperfect.

Arcturas
Mar 30, 2011



Utahís got a similar system with a nominating commission that recommends candidates to the governor, and the final nominee is subject to a consent vote by our senate. And retention elections every six years or so. Itís worked pretty well for us, to be honest. Only one candidate has ever been voted out in the retention election, but we havenít had too many really politically charged decisions. It also helps that our current and last few governors have been pretty committed to quality in the judiciary and have tried to avoid politicizing the system. (Likely in part because we are not a swing state.)

Phil Moscowitz
Feb 19, 2007

Chief Justice of the United States of Anime



Carillon posted:

Two letters surely.

Lol

Organza Quiz
Nov 7, 2009



The tasteless tattoo thread is currently discussing a very tasteless simpsons porn tattoo as it relates to this Australian case: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-12...ge-rules/233562

I'm trying to imagine what would happen if someone with a cartoon child porn tattoo was convicted under the same law. Usually the offending material would be seized and destroyed, but... it's a tattoo. I think judges only have relatively limited options for what they can order people to do, and I'm not sure whether "undergo painful procedure probably involving lasers followed by getting a blastover tattoo" is one of them. Any thoughts? What would happen in everyone else's jurisdiction?

Dik Hz
Feb 22, 2004

Fun with Science

Nice piece of fish posted:

It's important to avoid concealing the facts, but accentuate and highlight the truth
As long as she doesn't make up the law as she goes along, it should be fine.

Munin
Nov 14, 2004




So, what's the recourse if you are a reporter who got their eye shot out by a cop?

mercenarynuker
Sep 10, 2008

i am the bruce of the willis


Two very disparate questions regarding different legal specialties (probably):

If there was a new state that somehow joined the US, but it's state constitution had something more akin to a king rather than a governor, is there anything that technically prevents that? I assume they'd have to abide by some democratic elections of at least congressional representatives and senators, but would they be able to rule at least semi-absolutely otherwise?

On a completely different tack, if I were a property owner or church minister that had police officers use my drive during non-busy hours as a place to "hide" while they did speeding enforcement, would the 3rd amendment apply if I objected? I see cops all the time on private property driveways doing this (like church parking lots, restaurant driveways, etc). I realize I couldn't get them off someone ELSE'S property, but presumably one could stop their own property from being used by the police if they so desired?

sullat
Jan 8, 2012


Munin posted:

So, what's the recourse if you are a reporter who got their eye shot out by a cop?

Probably worker's comp

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

Nothing scarier than an artillery barrage -- Am I right?


mercenarynuker posted:

Two very disparate questions regarding different legal specialties (probably):

If there was a new state that somehow joined the US, but it's state constitution had something more akin to a king rather than a governor, is there anything that technically prevents that? I assume they'd have to abide by some democratic elections of at least congressional representatives and senators, but would they be able to rule at least semi-absolutely otherwise?

Article 4 of the constitution guarantees each state "a republican form of government", but what precisely this entails is, to the best of my knowledge, almost entirely untested.

owlhawk911
Nov 8, 2019


mercenarynuker posted:

On a completely different tack, if I were a property owner or church minister that had police officers use my drive during non-busy hours as a place to "hide" while they did speeding enforcement, would the 3rd amendment apply if I objected? I see cops all the time on private property driveways doing this (like church parking lots, restaurant driveways, etc). I realize I couldn't get them off someone ELSE'S property, but presumably one could stop their own property from being used by the police if they so desired?

the church in my town did this, and "coincidentally" "vandals" smashed up their little outdoor mary shrine thing a couple weeks later

sullat posted:

Probably worker's comp

Arcturas
Mar 30, 2011



Discendo Vox posted:

Article 4 of the constitution guarantees each state "a republican form of government", but what precisely this entails is, to the best of my knowledge, almost entirely untested.

I think there were a few cases where plaintiffs tried to get the courts to force states to implement specific voting or state legislative requirements, and the courts told them it was a political question and to go away?

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002



Arcturas posted:

I think there were a few cases where plaintiffs tried to get the courts to force states to implement specific voting or state legislative requirements, and the courts told them it was a political question and to go away?

i think that while the specifics of what qualifies as republican may be a political question, i suspect that the supreme court would find that declaring a monarchy violated it was sufficiently far removed from needing to weigh in on the latest voter suppression measures and invalidate it

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Nice piece of fish
Jan 29, 2008






Ultra Carp

Organza Quiz posted:

The tasteless tattoo thread is currently discussing a very tasteless simpsons porn tattoo as it relates to this Australian case: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-12...ge-rules/233562

I'm trying to imagine what would happen if someone with a cartoon child porn tattoo was convicted under the same law. Usually the offending material would be seized and destroyed, but... it's a tattoo. I think judges only have relatively limited options for what they can order people to do, and I'm not sure whether "undergo painful procedure probably involving lasers followed by getting a blastover tattoo" is one of them. Any thoughts? What would happen in everyone else's jurisdiction?

My guess would be that criminal law and human rights legislation means forced removal is out of the question. If you literally tattoo child porn on you, there are no means of enforcement that can be applied to your body other than forced testing, forced medication or incarceration.

For possession I would imagine some sort of double jeopardy would apply, you are by definition in possession of the same material that you were originally convicted of possessing and the material can't legally be removed, so you can't be convicted again for possession of the same material after the first time. This usually doesn't come up because duh, the police will confiscate it all and if you have a secret stash or aquire new copies, you were never charged with and convicted of possession of those specific copies.

When it comes to dissemination, if you allowed someone to view or take pictures of it, that incidence of exposure would itself be an individual criminal case, and subject for prosecution. Zolotukhin v. Russia would provide the limitations of "individual prosecutable criminal act" for purposes of double jeopardy.

That's as close as I can figure. You can get a tattoo of child porn, the courts can't force you to remove it, you'd be convicted once for possession and then get a new conviction for dissemination with a longer sentence every time anyone got to see the tattoo (maybe with added obscenity/exposure/etc).

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«898 »