Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

lonestarnot

(77,097 posts)

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

Reply to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:35 PM

Feb 2013

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?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why do we have a Judicial branch of government, anyway? [View all] MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 OP

Ummm....... Revanchist Feb 2013 #1

That's Third Way Manny for you. longship Feb 2013 #2

Judicial Branch of Government Quiz leftstreet Feb 2013 #3

100% boooooya! xtraxritical Feb 2013 #17

me too! even in spite of the fact that two of the questions were so badly worded.... lastlib Feb 2013 #34

To overturn Progressive legislation when it gets dangerous to the 1% Recursion Feb 2013 #4

For when it gets close enough to steal, we need deciders. lonestarnot Feb 2013 #5

To select the President when OldHippieChick Feb 2013 #6

And in close cases, there's always the dunking stool.... Junkdrawer Feb 2013 #7

All cases should be settled by the DU jury system. Skip Intro Feb 2013 #8

Six deciders??? Too many chefs spoil the pot, too much hassle plus that awful transparency TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #11

In FL, most juries are made up of 6 members. Only murder is 12 jurors. glowing Feb 2013 #14

Hear, hear! Let's call in a Drone strike on the Supreme Court... AzDar Feb 2013 #9

Then we wouldn't have to pay pensions. MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #10

manny's right....we have drones now...no need. n/t pepperbear Feb 2013 #12

Ask Bush ll. Jamaal510 Feb 2013 #13

Are you channeling Nancy Grace? nm rhett o rick Feb 2013 #15

Because Due Process is so 20th Century - n/t coalition_unwilling Feb 2013 #16

Yeah, but we know judges are not sensible people jsr Feb 2013 #18

Ah, you answered your own question. Judges don't "figure out if someone's guilty." nt Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #19

Kick woo me with science Feb 2013 #20

so torture camp creators and WMD conspirators can NOT BE CHARGED with anything just1voice Feb 2013 #21

Judges don't determine guilt. They determine the law. nt msanthrope Feb 2013 #22

Bench trials. MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #23

Only if the defendant wishes, generally. Mr. Awlaki could have had one, had he msanthrope Feb 2013 #24

Yemeni murder trial. MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #25

If I had chosen to live in a country, like Mr. Awlaki, I would not balk at its msanthrope Feb 2013 #26

Didn't he rule that Awlaki's dad had no standing to stop his son's secret execution order? nt MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #29

Why not read it and find out what he said about Awlaki's rights? The reason msanthrope Feb 2013 #30

Was Awlaki indicted? MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #31

Why would he be indicted? And, if you read the decision, the government acknowledged that a msanthrope Feb 2013 #33

Interesting points, but I can't imagine that it's OK to sentence people to death MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #35

You have made a fundamental error in your assessment of Mr. Awlaki that suggests ignorance of his msanthrope Feb 2013 #36

Excellent suggestion, Manny! LittleBlue Feb 2013 #27

Tradition of course Fumesucker Feb 2013 #28

Hear, hear. "Due process" can easily be carried out by secret police. DirkGently Feb 2013 #32