The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Fri Nov 22, 2024 2:21 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 4:43 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Anytime a law's meaning is defined in court it is re-routed to the legislative body that passed the law to approve the new definition - until the time that it is re-ratified the law cannot be considered active.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 4:45 pm 
Offline
Too lazy for a picture

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:40 pm
Posts: 1352
You would have to set some level of judical measure on this. Wacky local judges. Maybe Circuit or a superior court?

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 4:47 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Uncle Fester wrote:
You would have to set some level of judicial measure on this. Wacky local judges. Maybe Circuit or a superior court?


How about the highest court in the area in which the law was made and any higher?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 4:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:39 am
Posts: 452
How do you determine what constitutes redefining the law?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:21 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Amanar wrote:
How do you determine what constitutes redefining the law?


When a court rules in a way to attempt to clarity law.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:46 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
Doesn't that pretty much eliminate the idea of judicial review? If the judiciary doesn't have the ability to make any changes without the legistature's permission why have it?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:47 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Rorinthas wrote:
Doesn't that pretty much eliminate the idea of judicial review? If the judiciary doesn't have the ability to make any changes without the legistature's permission why have it?


Effectively yes however it also destroys the legislatures ability to pass law in conflict with the judiciary because until the matter is resolved to satisfaction of both the law is not in effect.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:06 pm 
Offline
Has a plan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 1584
I feel this would lead to more collusion then conflict. I feel that conflicting rulings by different judges across the country should be instantly held in stasis until a full review can reconcile them. So if the 9th circut says one thing, and the 7th circut says another on the same or similar topic, the ruling needs to be held until judicial review reconciles the federal position on that topic. Something we don't have now.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:17 pm 
Offline
Has a plan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 1584
A good example of the issue. Since lawyers tend to move on to be judges later.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-na ... .Windfall/

Jackpot: Lawyers earn fees from law they wrote
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD, AP
5 hours ago

LOS ANGELES — Every lawsuit filed or even threatened under a California law aimed at electing more minorities to local offices — and all of the roughly $4.3 million from settlements so far — can be traced to just two people: a pair of attorneys who worked together writing the statute, The Associated Press has found.

The law makes it easier for lawyers to sue and win financial judgments in cases arising from claims that minorities effectively were shut out of local elections, while shielding attorneys from liability if the claims are tossed out.

The law was drafted mainly by Seattle law professor Joaquin Avila, with advice from lawyers including Robert Rubin, legal director for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. Avila, Rubin's committee and lawyers working with them have collected or billed local governments about $4.3 million in three cases that settled, and could reap more from two pending lawsuits.

That's only a fraction of what might come. Dozens of cities and school boards have been warned they could be sued under the 2002 California Voting Rights Act.

All the cases have been initiated by Rubin's committee or Avila, who also is a member of the lawyers' group, according to an Associated Press review of legal documents, correspondence and legislative records, and interviews with lawyers, school and government officials, current and former legislators and voting-rights experts.

There is nothing illegal about the lawyers profiting from a law they authored and state lawmakers approved. But it is unusual that after seven years all legal efforts are so narrowly focused, especially since Avila told lawmakers when he testified for the bill in 2002 that he expected other attorneys would take on cases because of favorable incentives written into the measure.

Avila said the complexity of the litigation and the fact few attorneys are experts in voting rights have limited the number involved so far.

"I anticipate there will be more cases filed by other parties," he said.

Avila and Rubin say their roles in crafting the law shouldn't overshadow its importance and the need to use lawsuits and threats to end years of injustice at the polls. Those they target dispute the need for the law. The number of minority officeholders was climbing even before it was enacted, and they claim the lawyers are using the statute to shake down local governments.

"It's a money grab," charged John Stafford, superintendent of the Madera Unified School District that was slapped with a $1.2 million attorneys' bill even though it never contested a lawsuit.

The California statute targets commonly used "at-large" elections — those in which candidates run citywide or across an entire school district. Avila said that method can result in discrimination because whatever group constitutes the majority of voters can dominate the ballot box and block minorities from winning representation. As a remedy, the law empowers state courts to create smaller election districts favoring minority candidates.

Officials in several California communities said they never heard complaints of voter discrimination until the lawyers stepped forward. In one case, the Tulare Local Healthcare District, now known as Tulare Regional Medical Center, was sued even though its five-member governing board is a rainbow of diversity — two emigres from India, a Hispanic, a black and a white. The lawsuit argues Hispanics, who make up about a third of local voters, have been shortchanged.

That case could go to trial as early as January and is being closely watched by communities around the state. If the law is upheld, it could lead to a massive recasting of local election district boundaries, or more lawsuits.

Critics like Stafford see themselves as railroaded by lawyers armed with a law that's flawed and unnecessary. They say even if there's no discrimination, cash-strapped communities see little choice but to settle, given the risks of costly litigation and unwelcome publicity that comes with it.

A judge is reviewing the bill submitted to Madera. To pay, Stafford said the district would have to slash money for books and lunches for its mostly Hispanic students, an odd consequence for a law intended to aid Hispanics.

Though Hispanics constitute 76 percent of the city's population and a thin majority of its registered voters, according to court documents, the lawsuit claims Latinos are deprived of "the ability to meaningfully voice their preferences."

"To say that a majority can vote and say they have been discriminated against by a minority, when the majority has the power to elect whomever they want, is ridiculous," said Hans von Spakovsky, a former assistant attorney general for civil rights in the George W. Bush administration.

"The California law essentially requires that the ethnic group be guaranteed that its choices be elected. This is a clear violation of 14th Amendment. It makes race a predominant factor in elections."

Attorney Marguerite Mary Leoni represented the Hanford Joint Union High School District in a lawsuit the community settled for about $100,000, which it saw as cheaper than a court fight.

"It's a baffling law," she said. "I'm not quite sure it does anything to remedy discrimination."

Avila and Rubin dispute that, saying the law ensures minority voices are heard on election day.

Avila said the provision under which plaintiffs' attorneys can collect fees, expenses and expert witness costs, but not pay them if they lose, is a needed incentive for lawyers to take on cases.

Avila, who bills at $725 an hour, wouldn't disclose his earnings from the lawsuits. Though he drafted "probably the whole" law, "I don't think that should preclude me from enforcement," Avila said.

Rubin is paid a salary by the committee and can bill his legal work at $700 an hour.

California is among the nation's most diverse states. The number of Hispanics, blacks and Asians have together outnumbered whites since 1998. And by 2020 the Hispanic population alone is expected to top whites.

Between 1996 and 2008, the number of Hispanic elected officials in California jumped 82 percent, from 693 to 1,265, according to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. The mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, is Hispanic, as were three of the last six speakers in the state Assembly.

But a study released by the Latino Issues Forum in 2007 that found dozens of school districts with a majority of Hispanic students had few, if any, Latino board members.

"When you look at the local elected leadership, most of it is still white," said Avila, who teaches at Seattle University School of Law.

There are other factors in play beyond the shape and racial composition of districts. Historically, Hispanics turn out on election day in smaller percentages than whites or blacks. While the state population is about one-third Hispanic, they comprise only about two in ten of voters likely to turn out to vote, though that rate has been increasing.

Modesto was the first community targeted by a lawsuit from the lawyers' committee, which noted only one Hispanic was elected to the City Council since 1911 despite a significant Latino population. Modesto fought the case and Superior Court Judge Roger Beauchesne declared the law unconstitutional, saying it created preferential treatment for minorities without evidence of need. He also ruled the provision on attorneys' fees and expert witness costs amounted to illegal gifts of public money.

That decision was overturned on appeal, however, and the city eventually paid Avila, the lawyers' committee and a law firm working with them $3 million in a settlement after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

In the Ceres Unified School District, about 60 percent of the students are Hispanic. The district had two Latinos on its seven-member board when it was contacted by the lawyers' committee, which sued, alleging violations of the law, school officials said.

Superintendent Walt Hanline said the district decided to settle rather than fight.

"We said, 'We're not going to take textbooks out of kids hands for this. Why battle this issue and take the risk of losing millions of dollars?'" Hanline said.

The district has not been billed, but Rubin says he expects it only will be a few thousand dollars because it quickly agreed to change the way it conducts elections. He said the much larger settlement amount in the Modesto case reflected the extensive legal fight that ended at the Supreme Court.

Modesto, which is about one-quarter Hispanic, did not see a rush of minority candidates after new City Council districts were established, Mayor Jim Ridenour said. In a low-turnout election this month, one seat in a new Hispanic-majority district was won by David Geer, a 67-year-old federal security officer who is white.

Rubin concedes breaking up at-large elections doesn't guarantee more minorities immediately will be elected. What can be expected, he said, is a trend toward more diversity over time.

"Just because an African-American was elected president certainly doesn't mean that racial discrimination has sunseted, just like Bill Cosby having his own TV show didn't bring the end of racial discrimination," Rubin said.

"There's still much work to be done."

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
Elmo, the courts are a check on the power of the legislature. You would be essentially killing our system of checks and balances.

The law is not black and white. It *is* open to both legal review and interpretation.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:48 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Monte wrote:
Elmo, the courts are a check on the power of the legislature. You would be essentially killing our system of checks and balances.

The law is not black and white. It *is* open to both legal review and interpretation.


No Monte, the courts would still have power. In fact if they disagree with a law and the legislature does not re-vote and approve it the law is unenforced. The courts could still keep unconstitutional powers from being activated. What this does allow though is the legislature to regain control of the meaning of the law once they've voted on it.

Currently the judicial has the most power because they get to decide what the law says because they are the last to act on it.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 11:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
If any branch currently has the most power right now, it's the executive.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:44 am 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
That's the truth. "Activist" judges have been around for a long time (Dread Scott anyone?). The way to fix them is through consitutional ammendment. This of course requires a large support base to get it done, but it is possible.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:43 am 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Wouldn't this just create a legislative bottleneck as every time a conviction is overturned it would be kicked back for a rewrite? (Since there was two interpretations of the law, one at the lower court and another at the appeals level)

Also wouldn't this cause over-legislation as they would need to address every possible scenario that might potentially arise to create "air-tight" laws?

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:55 am 
Offline
Explorer

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:31 am
Posts: 480
Location: Garden State
The legislature can already do this. They can pass law that overrules stare decsis by adding new laws or amendments (small "a") to existing laws. They can also attempt to pass Amendments (big "A") to the Constitution that overrule judges as long as it's declared constitutional later. The problem is the legislative branches don't use this power nearly enough.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 10:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 2169
You can't have a system by which the Judicial is power balancing segment of government in which there is not the assumption that judges will be what some call "activist" judges.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:04 am 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Ienan wrote:
The legislature can already do this. They can pass law that overrules stare decsis by adding new laws or amendments (small "a") to existing laws. They can also attempt to pass Amendments (big "A") to the Constitution that overrule judges as long as it's declared constitutional later. The problem is the legislative branches don't use this power nearly enough.


Which is why this would force the legislature to address it and to make sure that laws in conflict were null they would not be in effect if in limbo. This would allow judges to veto laws by keeping them in limbo and would allow the legislature to restrain the judicial by resubmitting more exact laws.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:14 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Hopwin wrote:
Wouldn't this just create a legislative bottleneck as every time a conviction is overturned it would be kicked back for a rewrite? (Since there was two interpretations of the law, one at the lower court and another at the appeals level)

Also wouldn't this cause over-legislation as they would need to address every possible scenario that might potentially arise to create "air-tight" laws?


Soemthing tells me that's the real, unstated goal.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:35 am 
Offline
Explorer

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:31 am
Posts: 480
Location: Garden State
Elmarnieh wrote:
Ienan wrote:
The legislature can already do this. They can pass law that overrules stare decsis by adding new laws or amendments (small "a") to existing laws. They can also attempt to pass Amendments (big "A") to the Constitution that overrule judges as long as it's declared constitutional later. The problem is the legislative branches don't use this power nearly enough.


Which is why this would force the legislature to address it and to make sure that laws in conflict were null they would not be in effect if in limbo. This would allow judges to veto laws by keeping them in limbo and would allow the legislature to restrain the judicial by resubmitting more exact laws.

In essence, by the legislature not taking up the issue, they are indirectly stating they're okay with the interpretation of the law. If the legislature thought it to be an issue, they could take it up. I think it works fine as is.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:51 am 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
But I don't want passive agreement because it allows power to be assumed by the government. I want the legislative process slowed down and more competition between the branches.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:55 am 
Offline
Explorer

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:31 am
Posts: 480
Location: Garden State
Elmarnieh wrote:
But I don't want passive agreement because it allows power to be assumed by the government. I want the legislative process slowed down and more competition between the branches.

It's worked for the past 222 years or so. I don't think the issue is with the process. The issue should be with the public officials we've chosen. If the legislative branch performed their duties adequately, you wouldn't even be bringing this up.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:03 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Ienan wrote:
Elmarnieh wrote:
But I don't want passive agreement because it allows power to be assumed by the government. I want the legislative process slowed down and more competition between the branches.

It's worked for the past 222 years or so. I don't think the issue is with the process. The issue should be with the public officials we've chosen. If the legislative branch performed their duties adequately, you wouldn't even be bringing this up.




No it has not worked for the past 222 years unless by worked you mean "most protections against the accumulation of power have been ignored or removed". No one who has studied judicial history even casually could possibly make this claim.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:56 pm 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
Elmo:

The flaw, generally speaking, in governmental overreach is not in the judicial branch. It's in the legislative. Between the 17th Amendment and the failure of the House to properly scale up as population has grown, we end up failing to have both representation of all parties with interests in Federal law and locality of representation.


We need to repeal the 17th and add at least 500 people to the House.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 143 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group