"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child"

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I'm not sure you have a clear picture of the judicial system. Yes, legal precedent is important. But I think most appellate opinions arise where there is no legal precedent, or where there is conflicting legal precedent.

You're giving too much importance to the concept of "legal precedent" as it applies to appellate law (including SCOTUS) in perpetuating this myth of rampant judicial activism.

If there was clear "legal precedent" for every possible issue, there would be little need for appeals courts. The trial courts would just be able to follow the precedent.

The problems arise in the absence of clear legal precedent, when judges have to do what they think is right, according to their understanding of the law.

Perhaps precedent was the wrong word. I meant following tried legal principles using sound legal logic.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

You simply don't have a complete understanding of appellate law and precedent here, and you're subjecting yourself to the intellectual buffetings of partisan blowhards who understand little more than you do.

Disagree all you like, but there's no reason to cast aspersions on Whelan's credentials. They're better than mine, and I'm sure they're far better than yours.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Disagree all you like, but there's no reason to cast aspersions on Whelan's credentials. They're better than mine, and I'm sure they're far better than yours.

Why, is he an appellate lawyer, too?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

It's only a flesh wound. Come back and he'll bite you.

Stay out of this, spandex boy.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Why, is he an appellate lawyer, too?

http://bench.nationalreview.com/author/?q=MTUwOA==

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

Stay out of this, spandex boy.



http://bench.nationalreview.com/author/?q=MTUwOA==

Lycra, buddy, it's lycra.

Besides, you can't apprecaite a Monty Python reference in the middle of your mud fights?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

Lycra, buddy, it's lycra.

Besides, you can't apprecaite a Monty Python reference in the middle of your mud fights?

Not if I'm the one with no limbs left. And who's throwing mud anyway?

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

http://bench.nationalreview.com/author/?q=MTUwOA==

For all his experience, I'm disappointed in the crappy logic he showed in that excerpt.

I've got a case against a deputy U.S. Attorney with the DOJ. He's dumb as a post. He just got the snot beat out of him by the judge on a motion for being so stupid. The U.S. attorneys (and state attorneys general) I've come across are more arrogance than substance.

[T Blue]

Have you ever thought about running for State Attorney General, or one of those type positions you mention as being style rather than substance?

Maybe you could add some real substance to the position, make a difference?

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by T Blue

Have you ever thought about running for State Attorney General, or one of those type positions you mention as being style rather than substance?

Maybe you could add some real substance to the position, make a difference?

It's not the elected guys - it's the deputy A.G.'s and U.S. Attorneys.

I'm sure there are some really good ones, but I've seen a lot who were (and still are) clowns.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

For all his experience, I'm disappointed in the crappy logic he showed in that excerpt.

Interesting to see that he clerked for Judge J. Clifford Wallace of the Ninth Circuit, the court's former chief jugde, and a Mormon.