HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why do we have a Judicial...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:05 PM

Why do we have a Judicial branch of government, anyway?

Seems wasteful. Anyone with common sense can figure out if someone's guilty.

Getting rid of it is saving taxpayer money.

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

36 replies, 2770 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why do we have a Judicial branch of government, anyway? (Original post)
MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 OP
Revanchist Feb 2013 #1
longship Feb 2013 #2
leftstreet Feb 2013 #3
xtraxritical Feb 2013 #17
lastlib Feb 2013 #34
Recursion Feb 2013 #4
lonestarnot Feb 2013 #5
OldHippieChick Feb 2013 #6
Junkdrawer Feb 2013 #7
Skip Intro Feb 2013 #8
TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #11
glowing Feb 2013 #14
AzDar Feb 2013 #9
MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #10
pepperbear Feb 2013 #12
Jamaal510 Feb 2013 #13
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #15
coalition_unwilling Feb 2013 #16
jsr Feb 2013 #18
Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #19
woo me with science Feb 2013 #20
just1voice Feb 2013 #21
msanthrope Feb 2013 #22
MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #23
msanthrope Feb 2013 #24
MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #25
msanthrope Feb 2013 #26
MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #29
msanthrope Feb 2013 #30
MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #31
msanthrope Feb 2013 #33
MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #35
msanthrope Feb 2013 #36
LittleBlue Feb 2013 #27
Fumesucker Feb 2013 #28
DirkGently Feb 2013 #32

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:10 PM

1. Ummm.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Revanchist (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:28 PM

2. That's Third Way Manny for you.

You're never sure. Gets one thinking, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to leftstreet (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 12:30 AM

17. 100% boooooya!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:53 PM

34. me too! even in spite of the fact that two of the questions were so badly worded....

that a correct answer was impossible.

"What happens if you don't have a lawyer?" Civil case or criminal?
"How many cases does the Supreme Court review every year?" Depends--what level of review? They look at thousands of appeals, but select only a few to actually render a decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:32 PM

4. To overturn Progressive legislation when it gets dangerous to the 1%

Duh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:35 PM

5. For when it gets close enough to steal, we need deciders.

But beats me, life means nothing to many any more. We certainly know that of the probirthers, they are certainly not prolife. Why should a piece of government matter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:40 PM

6. To select the President when

the repukes can't figure out another way to rig it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:43 PM

7. And in close cases, there's always the dunking stool....

If you drown, you're innocent. Otherwise, you're guilty and should be burned at the stake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:46 PM

8. All cases should be settled by the DU jury system.

It is infallible and just think of the money we'd save!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:59 PM

11. Six deciders??? Too many chefs spoil the pot, too much hassle plus that awful transparency

Hell, there are public accusations and results. Folks would know the crime for crying out loud!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:23 PM

14. In FL, most juries are made up of 6 members. Only murder is 12 jurors.

I never knew only 6 decided most fates until I was called to serve. I def don't want to commit a crime in FL, people don't seem all that reliable or stable and there are only 6 of them to decide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:49 PM

9. Hear, hear! Let's call in a Drone strike on the Supreme Court...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AzDar (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:51 PM

10. Then we wouldn't have to pay pensions.

Good idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:46 PM

12. manny's right....we have drones now...no need. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:48 PM

13. Ask Bush ll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:59 PM

15. Are you channeling Nancy Grace? nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 12:14 AM

16. Because Due Process is so 20th Century - n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 12:47 AM

18. Yeah, but we know judges are not sensible people

Besides, they're rather slow.

Serious people don't have time for such things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 12:57 AM

19. Ah, you answered your own question. Judges don't "figure out if someone's guilty." nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:26 PM

21. so torture camp creators and WMD conspirators can NOT BE CHARGED with anything

 

and corporations can be given more rights than human beings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:30 PM

22. Judges don't determine guilt. They determine the law. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #22)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:34 PM

23. Bench trials.

But even those are too fancy and expensive foe people who, we know in our gut, are terra-ists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #23)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:38 PM

24. Only if the defendant wishes, generally. Mr. Awlaki could have had one, had he

chosen to show up for his Yemeni murder trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:42 PM

25. Yemeni murder trial.

Would you show up for one of those?

Was he indicted in the US?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:47 PM

26. If I had chosen to live in a country, like Mr. Awlaki, I would not balk at its

justice system.

Why would the US indict a non-custodial enemy combatant who fell under the authority granted by the AUMF of 9/18/2001?

Judge Bates of the DC Circuit Court outlined Mr. Awlaki's rights quite clearly---he chose not to exercise them:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1469-31

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #26)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:07 PM

29. Didn't he rule that Awlaki's dad had no standing to stop his son's secret execution order? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #29)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:14 PM

30. Why not read it and find out what he said about Awlaki's rights? The reason

the dad was denied next-friend was because the court found that Mr. Awlaki himself had significant rights under the law, AND the ability to challenge his designation. He deliberately chose not to exercise those rights, as opposed to being unable to exercise those rights. Pages 16, 17, and 18 outline the due process and rights Mr. Awlaki turned down.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #30)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:17 PM

31. Was Awlaki indicted?

Did Awlaki have reason to believe that he wouldn't be executed upon trying to surrender? IIRC, Imperial Minister Brennan worked mightily yesterday to evade the question about whether secret members of the secret assassination list could surrender - what was up with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #31)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:31 PM

33. Why would he be indicted? And, if you read the decision, the government acknowledged that a

surrender would trigger due process rights as outlined by Hamdi and its progeny. Again--if you read pages 16, 17, and 18, you will see that the DOJ agreed with the court that a custodial enemy combatant has significant rights that a non-custodial combatant does not.


Judge Bates also detailed how Awlaki had the ability to post hundreds of YouTube videos (Anthony Weiner was instrumental in getting them taken down, fyi) but chose not to seek representation in any of those videos. A video calling on the ACLU or the CCR, or a phone call would have secured him representation.

As Judge Bates makes clear, due process rights are reserved for those who participate in the process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #33)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:59 PM

35. Interesting points, but I can't imagine that it's OK to sentence people to death

who are not actively engaged in warfare, without some sort of judicial oversight. A the very least, it sets the grounds for awful abuse by the Executive at some point. Seems like a FISA-court like entity needs to keep an eye on things.

I'd love to read and digest the 80+ page doc, but as a parent and breadwinner, my time is limited. But thanks for the link - perhaps I will try it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #35)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:24 PM

36. You have made a fundamental error in your assessment of Mr. Awlaki that suggests ignorance of his

activities.

You wrote "who are not actively engaged in warfare," which suggests that you have not read of his active involvement in the Cargo Bomb Plot, the British Airways Plot, the Christmas Bomb Plot, and the incidents involving, Molly Norris, Stephen Timms, Fort Hood, and Times Square. His emails to Rajib Karim are public record, read aloud in court.

The trial at Woolwich crown court, south-east London, heard Awlaki had written an email to Karim asking: "Is it possible to get a package or person with a package on board a flight heading to the US?"

Police believe Karim was offering to supply information to terrorists that could be used to stage an attack. He also tried to join BA cabin crew during a strike but failed because of a technicality.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/28/british-airways-bomb-guilty-karim


If you cannot read an 80-page decision that outlines Mr. Awlaki's activities and rights, try his Wikipedia page. It's shorter, and has links.

Further, the judiciary of the United States is not going to get involved in a military decision authorized by Congress and made by the CIC. I believe I have encouraged you to read the Youngstown decision regarding how Executive power is regarded. The only way you are going to get a FISA-like court is if Congress gets off its rear-end and authorizes it. Which it won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:51 PM

27. Excellent suggestion, Manny!

All this separation of powers business is too confusing.

Why do we need 3 branches of government when we have Obama?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:51 PM

28. Tradition of course

Which basically means we do something a certain way not because it has an actual function but because we've always done it that way.

DU is very supportive of tradition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:18 PM

32. Hear, hear. "Due process" can easily be carried out by secret police.


If you have nothing to hide, and haven't annoyed anyone in a position of power, or associated yourself with anyone who poses a real or imagined threat to someone who knows someone who's in a position of power ...

YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT!










(appropriate smiley to communicate post is in keeping with the MannyGoldstein flavor of the OP)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread