Originally posted by Deja~vu
No kidding. That is supposed to be their job, and it's the final say, but it has become more of a reinventing of them. Judges are supposed to be unbiased, but that is not what is happening here anymore.
Can you give an example of the Supreme Court Seven being biased and reinventing the law?
The Michigan Supreme Court sure has. Laws are based on common and case laws. They could be influenced by any case law presented. There are always 2 objecting points of laws when deciding a case and the judge picks the ones he feels is right (for him). That is biased. That sets a precedent.
Then new legislation can be introduced to make a change to the law that is existing, that is where some of the problems lie. Since many state representatives are conservative and most people don't really research their Judges but vote for the incumbent...Rogue Judges just stay in power. If someone else sees the problem and runs for the seat and loses, lets say an attorney, then his career is over in that area or county.
Of course there are strong lobby groups that influence what happens in the court room. One such group that actually sits in the court room is MADD. There was one case of a woman who after a night at the bar decided after she had gotten in her car that she shouldn't be driving so she took a nap in the back seat. To me I felt she was being very responsible, but according to the law, she had left her car keys in the ignition. When the police saw that she was asleep in the back seat but her keys were in the ignition she was arrested. She was sentenced to 6 months in jail, but with a work release and had 360 hours of community service. Now how can she work a full time job and do 360 of community service with in 6 months? Of course there's an out. She could pay the court 8 dollars an hour for each hour of community service, which of course she didn't have.
This is just one case that a law has gone awry. She is still in jail for trying to do the right thing.
It's all about money.
Originally posted by Devil KingWell both actually. MADD is responsible for many tighter actions against people and as I have said they sit in court rooms to make sure that their agenda is being followed or they make sure that the judge could get bad press. Lobby groups are responsible for many laws or law changes as we all know.
I'm not sure I follow. The law actually addresses the issue of the keys being in the ignition. But the fact that she was in teh back seat should have clued the arresting officer in to her intentions. So, are you addressing the law or are you addressing the judge's motives for making his descision?
In the case I was talking about, this woman is still there and not able to see her husband or child unless they visit her for 20 minutes twice a week. I feel this is an injustice. Then one must think, is this best for the family or the child to be estranged from their mother?
Maybe this thread should be changed to "Lobby Groups"...
MODS, can you change it to this please?
As my esteemed above colleague has noted, this is more to do with the laws in existance, than the judge being malicious, biased and doing whatever he/she wanted.
If you're over the limit, putting your keys in the ignition is enough probable cause to assume you intend to drive. Fair or not, that is the law as it currently is. I've read of a similar story were a drunk only intended to listen to the radio while he sobbered up, yet he was hit with a drunk-driving citation.
So, how about that example?
Originally posted by RobtardJudges have a spectrum which to go by in sentencing. So one must wonder why they would be so harsh. I believe it also comes down to the money aspect. More money to the court and county when economics are at the lowest. Well, they want to keep their jobs too, eh?
As my esteemed above colleague has noted, this is more to do with the laws in existance, than the judge being malicious, biased and doing whatever he/she wanted.If you're over the limit, putting your keys in the ignition is enough probable cause to assume you intend to drive. Fair or not, that is the law as it currently is. I've read of a similar story were a drunk only intended to listen to the radio while he sobbered up, yet he was hit with a drunk-driving citation.
So, how about that example?
Pfft, probable cause. That is subjective. There's no clear rule on that in many states. And there are always exceptions to the law.
If you're over the limit, putting your keys in the ignition is enough probable cause to assume you intend to driveWhile sleeping in the back seat??
Originally posted by Deja~vu
Judges have a spectrum which to go by in sentencing. So one must wonder why they would be so harsh. I believe it also comes down to the money aspect. More money to the court and county when economics are at the lowest. Well, they want to keep their jobs too, eh?Pfft, probable cause. That is subjective. There's no clear rule on that in many states.
I don't know, maybe because drunk drivers destroy the lives of other people? Maybe? Possible? A chance?
Well, people tend to put the key in the ignition when they intend to drive, in fact, this is the most common reason why someone would insert key into ignition.
Edit: I can't expect that example of Supreme Court bias, can I?
In the Federal Supreme Court cases there are 9 Justice's.
There is a ruling and there are cases that decide that ruling. Not all the Justice's agree, or some may but not on the stated premises.
In this case, I am speaking about State Supreme cases, not Federal Justices.
As my esteemed above colleague has noted, this is more to do with the laws in existanceThis is a new law and laws are always changed.
Originally posted by Deja~vu
In the Federal Supreme Court cases there are 9 Justice's.
There is a ruling and there are cases that decide that ruling. Not all the Justice's agree, or some may but not on the stated premises.In this case, I am speaking about State Supreme cases, not Federal Justices.
Is this supposed to be an example of bias, or more non sequiter?
As far as your "in the backseat" edit, she shouldn't have put her keys in the ignition, simple as that. The law is very strict and clear on that aspect when it comes to being drunk and in a car. Not saying she got what she deserved, but the law is, what it is.
Originally posted by RobtardAnd when a law is changed that would effect you? Would you be okay with what you thought was right?
Is this supposed to be an example of bias, or more non sequiter?As far as your "in the backseat" edit, she shouldn't have put her keys in the ignition, simple as that. The law is very strict and clear on that aspect when it comes to being drunk and in a car. Not saying she got what she deserved, but the law is, what it is.
I can give other examples as well.
As far as I am concerned, she was doing the right thing. She was being responsible.
Originally posted by Deja~vu
And when a law is changed that would effect you? Would you be okay with what you thought was right?I can give other examples as well.
As far as I am concerned, she was doing the right thing. She was being responsible.
That is a broad question, depends on hows and whys. Also, do I get to vote on that change?
Proceed.
Well yes, I agree that at face value, she was doing the right thing. She should have been smarter though and not inserted the keys in the ignition, as the law is very clear on that aspect.
Okay, here is another case of someone I know. There was a woman...geez why is it always women....LOL
Anywhoo, she is single and has 3 children. Her boys are doing drugs and have sold it from her home. She was indited for selling drugs from her home which is a felony. She can no longer get a job in her field as a teacher. If you don't already know, it is almost impossible to get a job if you have a felony. Well, she was taken to court and charged in that way and her eldest son was removed from her home (over 18) and not allowed to be in contact with his siblings. Later when she had some cheap ass job, she came home and found that there were many boys about the age of 16 all drinking and smoking weed in her home. Her son age 15/16 was sleeping up stairs. She wanted to do the right thing according to what the court might help with, soooooooo she went to court and reported this hoping that she would get some help. Instead of some help, the court charged her 500 a month or go to jail because she didn't know what was going on in her home while she was at work. She tried to explain that she couldn't pay that since she was going through bankruptcy. The court, however told her that she has to pay until the youngest is 18, otherwise she will have to spend time in jail. The court told her that she would get another felony charge.
This person was trying to work with the court, but in the end found herself a victim of it again.
Well yes, I agree that at face value, she was doing the right thing. She should have been smarter though and not inserted the keys in the ignition, as the law is very clear on that aspect.
She understood that she was too drunk. She wan't thinking about this or that. She wasn't trying to understand what the laws were. She was trying to do the right thing in the eyes of the court.
She should have better control of her underage children, as the parents are responsible for their actions until they turn 18. Sucks sometimes; it's the law. Raw deal though, I agree, but how does this show that Judges are bias and bending the laws as they see fit?
That's the point, she should have been thinking and NOT put the keys in the ignition.
Originally posted by RobtardMy point is that judges are influenced by outside lobby groups. They may be better for us or go against our constitution in some instances. Many people don't understand their rights, but try to do what they feel is right and get penalized...and that is thanks to lobby groups.
She should have better control of her underage children, as the parents are responsible for their actions until they turn 18. Sucks sometimes; it's the law. Raw deal though, I agree, but how does this show that Judges are bias and bending the laws as they see fit?That's the point, she should have been thinking and NOT put the keys in the ignition.
There are some really good groups and some that are not. My point is that lobby groups influence the court system in many more wayw than the common person understands.
Lobby groups shape our judicial system. They put pressures on the judicial system.
What was law yesterday can be changed today and visa virsa. What was only a suggestion yesterday, I. E seat belts did become a law.
Well, I'm thrilled you finally got to your point, and I do agree to a point. You could have done it 10 post sooner though.
As Inimalist mentioned though, the ACLU isn't completely a benevolent "just out to help the little guy" entity. It is also is a "lobby group"; it has its own agenda. Still, they are alright sometimes.