You'd think that the precedent set by some of our Conservative Supreme Court Justices, such as Thomas and Scalia, would've convinced these guys that they should move according to the law instead of politics, would be a nice guide to them.
It's not about politics as much as about how you view the system. The judges are worried about undermining the credibility of the system, and are going with the status quo because the law essentially requires it. What people don't understand is that the law isn't (and shouldn't be) as fluid as we would sometimes like it. Conservative judges want the law to evolve slowly with care. This translates into bad situations where things that should be dealt with immediately are delayed because judges see themselves as both keepers of the law and prisoners of the law (they don't want to change it even if they feel a desire to because they don't want to change it unneccesarilly). They have to believe that this is a case where the law needs to change, and then change slowly. Liberal judges can, and from personal experience often desire, to change the law to fit the facts of a particular case. Sometimes, they don't really care to change the law, just ignore it to achieve a particular result. The worst experiences I've had in court were with Democratically appointed federal judges who felt that the merits of the case and the law were irrelevant than insuring that the side they wanted to win won.
This case will go to the Supremes, because it hits the conservative and liberal judges where they live: the law as it exists is producing a bad result that affects the whole system. And if House doesn't get relief there, a lot of Tennesseans (myself included) will be requesting the Governor to step in.
You'd think that the precedent set by some of our Conservative Supreme Court Justices, such as Thomas and Scalia, would've convinced these guys that they should move according to the law instead of politics, would be a nice guide to them.
It's not about politics as much as about how you view the system. The judges are worried about undermining the credibility of the system, and are going with the status quo because the law essentially requires it. What people don't understand is that the law isn't (and shouldn't be) as fluid as we would sometimes like it. Conservative judges want the law to evolve slowly with care. This translates into bad situations where things that should be dealt with immediately are delayed because judges see themselves as both keepers of the law and prisoners of the law (they don't want to change it even if they feel a desire to because they don't want to change it unneccesarilly). They have to believe that this is a case where the law needs to change, and then change slowly. Liberal judges can, and from personal experience often desire, to change the law to fit the facts of a particular case. Sometimes, they don't really care to change the law, just ignore it to achieve a particular result. The worst experiences I've had in court were with Democratically appointed federal judges who felt that the merits of the case and the law were irrelevant than insuring that the side they wanted to win won.
This case will go to the Supremes, because it hits the conservative and liberal judges where they live: the law as it exists is producing a bad result that affects the whole system. And if House doesn't get relief there, a lot of Tennesseans (myself included) will be requesting the Governor to step in.
This is a load of bullshit. This case is very, very clear: There is substantial new evidence that points to the convicted man being innocent of the crime, and a great number of judges are even refusing to consider this new evidence. A retrial should be the least that would be done and in short order, yet this case has been languishing around in limbo for over two years. They are simply ignoring the definition of what is required to convict for murder and what is required to convict for capital murder, i.e. they are ignoring the law to satisfy their ideology.
For your information, this kind of action actually hurts the system, it does NOT help preserve its credibility, quite the opposite. Interpretations of law are not as set in stone as you seem to think, and when there is new relevant evidence, even after a conviction, it should be possible to retry cases when warranted.
Edi
Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist
Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp
GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan
The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die
For your information, this kind of action actually hurts the system, it does NOT help preserve its credibility, quite the opposite. Interpretations of law are not as set in stone as you seem to think, and when there is new relevant evidence, even after a conviction, it should be possible to retry cases when warranted.
Thank you for explaining how the system works. I missed it in law school and during my career. Yes, it should be possible to admit new evidence. However, it's not always possible, given that statutes in many states limit when and how said evidence can be introduced, and what effect it can have. This was in response to the perceived effort to use any point (whether minor or major) to get an appeal. The reality was that the sentence was never final, because multiple appeals on different grounds were the norm in the state and federal system. Once again, whether this was good or bad depends on your own personal view, but the end result was that legislatures tightened the screws on newly discovered evidence.
As for my intepretation being bullshit, it may be. But given that it's how attorneys, law professors, and even judges describe the situation, it must be universally accepted bullshit.
Then obviously there is something fucking seriously wrong with the American justice system, which again is no surprise to anyone who has paid the least bit of attention to things. It's curious how you defend your viewpoint as unassailably correct and appeal to a lot of authorities, when you have systems based on how I outlined things working quite well (here in Finland for example), and the simple fact that our system works in practice puts paid to any feeble protestations you might put up about "but so and so said it, so it must be true!"
If your system can't get something as bloody simple as this thing fitted into its problem resolution procedures, I suggest seriously overhauling the relevant aspects of it.
Edi
Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist
Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp
GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan
The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die
Undeniable proof that Politicians will KILL AN INNOCENT MAN IN COLD BLOOD just because not doing so would be inconvenient to their holding on to their political careers!
I WANT THOSE EIGHT JUDGES TRIED AND CONVICTED OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FIRST DEGREE MURDER. THE SENTENCE SHALL BE DEATH BY BEHEADING IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE!
