"Joe King" <jeffile@pacbell.net> wrote:

A good example is
Attorney General Gonzales. How in the world could someone with his
judicial credentials make such a convulted arguement concerning habeus
corpus not being granted by the constitution.

He's a *****.

Joe King wrote:

"Bill Shatzer" <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qr-dnZcq3sncUSbYnZ2dnUVZ_rCsnZ2d@comcast.com...

Joe King wrote:

-snip-

There are judges (yes, plural) in Vermont giving long-term child
molesters probabiton with no incarceration time.

Near as I can figure out from the news reports, there've been
exactly -two- such cases - one of which -did- involve incarceration time
(admittedly modest) and the other of which was the result of a plea
bargain.

The judge has no particular role in a plea bargain and, as near as I can
tell, in the other case, the judge had cogent reasons. Not necessarily
reasons I agree with but cogent none the less.

The judges reasoning (I'm assuming we are talking about the same case)

We are, I think.

was that the guilty party could not get sex offender treatment while
incarcerated and it was the judges decision, not a plea bargin.

But, in that case, the judge -did- order incareration. Only 60 days, 'tis
true but incareration none the less.

And apparently the reason why he could not get sex offender treatment was
that he had been adjudicated by the State Department of Corrections as
"unlikely to commit another offense" and state law precluded treatment of
offenders so classified while they wer incarcerated.

It also seems that the offender was borderline mentally retarded with the
emotional maturity of a twelve-year old - which the judge felt made more
immediate sex offender treatment imperitive.

Rather obviously, the fellow was going to get out of prison eventually.
Given that, it seems at least a debatable point that it was more important
to get immediate and arguably more effective treatment sooner rather than
less effective or ineffective treatment later.

Don't know that I'd necessarily agree but I'd think I'd require
considerably more information on the crime and the offender before I'd
declare the judge completely off the reservation in his decision. It very
well might the least bad option available.

There was a second case I picked up on my google search which -did-
involve no jail time but which was a plea bargain - apparently the DA felt
the victim would not, for several reasons, be a very good witness and
would, in any event, be unduly traumatized if required to testify.

Again, I'd have to know a lot more about the case before saying this was a
good call or a bad one on the DA's part.

The case was returned to court and the person was given three years.
Also, this particular judge has a long on and off problem with alcoholism
and DWIs.

I can find just absolutely NOTHING which indicates Judge Cashman ever had
a "problem with alcoholism and DWIs". Certainly nothing to that effect is
mentioned in any of the dozen or so news articles I've reviewed; indeed,
by all accounts, he is something of a church-going, conservative,
strait-laced republican type. Not that strait-laced republicans don't have
that sort of problem but you'd think that if he did, the news articles
describing him as a church-going, conservative, GOPer would find the space
to at least mention such a personal failing.

Absent a reliable source to the contrary, I'd think that just another
unfounded allegation which comes dangerously close to Swift-Boating.

I pointed out Vermont but there are many cases in other states which get
no attention because of a lack of publicity.

We have, what, a million felony convictions a year in the United States?

If God hisself were running the court, there'd be a few slip-ups while
processing that number.

Still, the "problem" is hardly prevelent or wide-spread or, indeed, a
"problem" at all.

Mostly the outrage 'bout Judge Cashman's sentence is Bill O'Reilly
throwing raw meat to his audiences.

We really don't have enough information to pass judgment and I doubt
O'Reilly does either.

I think a better example would be unjust treatment of blacks prior to the
civil rights era of the 60s. It was only after a continued outcry by the
media which educated people and tweaked their conscience. Of course,
this issue was raised and trumpeted more by liberal media (to their
credit).

Hardly an example of judical stupidity, though, eh?

Also, the ninth circuit court has a high amount af cases turned over
because of their odd collective interpretation of the Constitution.

We were through this particular shibolith 'bout a year back. In fact, as
a portion of the number of cases actually decided, the Ninth Circuit
ranks fifth or sixth in the number of USSC reversals.

The Ninth Circuit has more cases reversed simply because it has more
cases than any other circuit.

I don't wish to rehash an old issue (of which I disagree with your
conclusion).

"The U.S. Supreme Court reversed or vacated 76 percent of the 9th Circuit
cases it heard this session. Collectively, the circuits were reversed 77
percent of the time.

But comparisons between circuits are difficult when no other circuit comes
close to the number of cases under review. The closest was the 6th
Circuit, which contributed eight cases. Six were reversed.

In last year's session, the 9th Circuit's reversal rate was 75 percent.
Over the last three years, it has averaged 74 percent. In the last five
years, the average is 78 percent, including a 90 percent rate for the
1999-2000 session."

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1088439705222

In otherwords, the 9th Circuit was just about average in USSC reversals
compared to the other circuits.

Regardless, it just shows how much judicial activism is in place which
must mean there is a large group of incompetents or , just as bad, judges
who create rather than iterpret the law.

It shows no such thing. It merely shows that the supreme court and the
appellant courts disagree from time to time.

Note that the USSC seldom agrees to take cases when it -agrees- with the
decision of the appeals court. Thus the 77% reversal rate for the appeals
courts as a whole and the 76% reversal rate for the Ninth Circuit.

The thousands of cases a year where the appeals courts basically "got it
right" in the opinion of the USSC just never get USSC review at all in the
vast majority of cases.

A good example is Attorney General Gonzales. How in the world could
someone with his judicial credentials make such a convulted arguement
concerning habeus corpus not being granted by the constitution.

I don't think that's his argument. But Gonzales is a -lawyer-, albeit a
very political one. A lawyer's duty is to zealously advance the interests
of his client and make -all- arguments in support of his client which are
not legally frivolous.

Gonzales' client is the dubya administration. Iffen they wanna argue they
can suspend habeas, its the AG's job to advance all legal arguments in
support of their position.

You'd expect no less iffen he was -your- lawyer.

Peace and justice,

I don't think that's his argument. But Gonzales is a -lawyer-, albeit a
very political one. A lawyer's duty is to zealously advance the
interests of his client and make -all- arguments in support of his
client which are not legally frivolous.
Gonzales' client is the dubya administration.

Iffen they wanna argue
they can suspend habeas, its the AG's job to advance all legal arguments
in support of their position.
You'd expect no less iffen he was -your- lawyer.