This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Current Events

1679111239

Comments

  • Why would you care what people think of you after you're dead? You won't face any consequences for being thought of poorly.
  • It's not the job of the court to regulate manners or etiquette or respect.
    A judge can enforce what he/she considers to be decorous and respectful in the courtroom. It is a natural extension of his/her contempt power.

    Walk into a courtroom in your local courthouse while court is in session while wearing a hat. I'll bet you five dollars that a bailiff will ask you to remove your hat. I'll bet even more that a bailiff or the judge will ask everyone to turn off their cell phones. Does this make you want to riot in the streets?

    I was once a target of judicial displeasure because I didn't wear a tie to Saturday arraignment court. It was Saturday morning, so I didn't have a tie. No other judge required a tie. Did I get upset? Did CNN interview me about my rights being violated? No. I apologized, carried on, and next time I had court with that particular judge, I wore a tie even though it was Saturday morning.

    Is there a tempest in this teapot?
  • edited June 2012
    I'm not arguing whether they do; I'm arguing that it is not their job. The government is not there to legislate niceties. It is fucking idiotic that we have a SCOTUS battle over whether to help poor people not die while at the same time nobody even thinks about the myriad tiny abuses that we all just accept.

    Does this make me want to riot in the streets? That's the wrong question. It's an Animal Farm question. Fuck that judge.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • edited June 2012
    I'm not arguing whether they do; I'm arguing that it is not their job. The government is not there to legislate niceties.
    Have you ever been asked to take off your hat or take down the hood of a coat you were wearing when you went into a bank? It's kind of the same thing. Of course, the bank has a more rational reason to make your hat, but this is just something that we live with. If you go into a courtroom, you're expected to conform your conduct to at least a modicum of decorum. Some judges allow people to read in court. Some don't allow it. Some allow people to whisper and talk. Others don't. I just don't see that it's a problem to worry about in the least. It's the judge's call. Respect that, and you'll be fine. So, this one particular judge doesn't like exposed underwear. Solution: Don't expose your underwear in his court. Is that so hard?

    Animal Farm? Really? So this guy is a Stalinist because he doesn't want to see your underwear flapping in the wind? I don't want to see your underwear either. Does that make me one of the pigs? I don't think so. I think it just makes me a member of the large group of people who'd really rather not see your underwear.

    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • edited June 2012
    We don't allow people in authority to go around legislating on the spot. Imagine if it were a mayor who didn't like the color yellow, and in order to get a marriage license, he decided you had to not wear the color yellow. That's a flagrant abuse of the American system of law.

    It's lex rex, not judge's-personal-opinions-on-things-that-have-no-bearing-on-the-law-rex. What is the judge's legal basis for allowing or disallowing underwear, ties, the color yellow, or arm hair in court? Does it have a bearing on the outcome of a trial? Does wearing a hat impede justice? Does it give an unfair advantage to the defense? Does it prevent the jury from having the evidence presented? Does it somehow circumvent the law?

    No? Then the judge should, by our principles, have no fucking say in it.

    That's the line we should be drawing in court, not setting up mini-kingdoms where lex rex is replaced by judge rex. The purpose of a judge is mediate the justice process, not to legislate his own fashion sensibilities.

    And yes, when we allow one person to be more equal than other persons with no legal recourse for no justifiable reason, that is Stalinism.

    It doesn't matter whether you or anyone else wants or does not want to see the guy's underwear. I don't want to see the guy's underwear. But that's not the point. The point is that the style is not breaking the law, and not impeding the justice system, and so there should be no legal basis for the judge to make demands about it.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • edited June 2012
    Jason, a judge's court is like a person's home, or a boss' work-floor. The judge gets to make a lot of rules regarding the way she wants to see things run. In most states, if people don't like those rules, they don't vote for that judge in the next election. In other states, the offending judge is simply allowed to run out their appointment and then asked to leave. It's not a flagrant abuse. In fact, I'd be very surprised if I couldn't find at some point today some legal authority that specifically says that it is not flagrant abuse.

    Speaking of flagrant abuse, there are remedies for actual abuse. Try looking up the judicial review board and complain about the judge's practice if you're so incensed. The board will investigate your claim and do nasty things if they think you're right to complain.

    Edit: I just looked quickly and I found this court in TX: http://bruceville-eddy.org/municipal-court/ that won't hear your case if you don't comply with a dress code. And . . . here's a court in CT that won't allow shorts - http://articles.courant.com/1999-07-12/news/9907120139_1_court-date-dress-code-shorts Here's an article that includes one court that turned a woman away for wearing flip-flops: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-08-16-court-dress-code_N.htm Oh noes1 What about her flip-flop speech rights? Personally, I like that, because I despise flip-flops.

    I imagine now you'll lead a national crusade against all these flagrant abuses to the point where court is clothing optional and defendants can fling their feces at judges because their flung feces is am expression of their speech.

    Do you make rules at your home that your child has to obey? Why, isn't that Stalinism if your child doesn't immediately see a rational basis for your arbitrary rules?

    There doesn't have to be a rational basis for a judge's rules regarding decorum, but if you really, really desire to show your underwear in court, you have recourse to have the system changed. Years ago - and I don't mean very many years ago either, since I have personal memories of this "before time" - most judges required women attorneys to wear dresses in court. Of course, many women decided they didn't like that, and so they went to their state legislatures, state supreme courts, and so forth and had this practice changed. Now women attorneys regularly show up dressed much more casually than men. I could let that make me mad and get all steamed up that a woman can come in dressed in business casual attire, and I have to get all suited up, but you know what? I have larger things to worry about, like whether I can get my toothless redneck defendant more time to try and pay his back child support.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Are you really so stupid as to propose:

    a) That laws and parental rules have the same standard of expectation, and
    b) That because a government rule has precedent that it is justifiable and defensible?

    Really, Joe, you're just being old and cranky here. "IT DUN ALWAYS BEN DIS WAY, SO ITSA RIGHT, SONNY."
  • Are you really so stupid as to propose:

    a) That laws and parental rules have the same standard of expectation, and
    b) That because a government rule has precedent that it is justifiable and defensible?

    Really, Joe, you're just being old and cranky here. "IT DUN ALWAYS BEN DIS WAY, SO ITSA RIGHT, SONNY."
    Actually, given how the United States has a common law legal system, precedent, especially judicial precedent, is pretty much as important as legislated law.
  • That wasn't the question.
  • edited June 2012
    Ad hominems from Jason. What a nice way to star the day.

    I hope you notice that I never called you or your argument stupid, but let's talk about your argument. You compared the judge who asked a guy to pull up his pants to the characters in Animal Farm and then reinforced your position by agreeing that you were calling this judge Stalinist.

    SOOOO . . . Judge who asks a guy to pull up his pants = Stalin, a guy who entered into a treaty with Hitler and was personally responsible for the oppression and horrible deaths of millions of people. And you're calling ME stupid? Right. I'm the stupid one here.

    I guess the only objection you made in your last post that wasn't an ad hominem was that my argument was an Appeal to Tradition. That wasn't what I was arguing at all. If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I stated that, if you're really, really interested in changing this practice of disallowing exposed underwear, there are mechanisms in place for you to use in order to change it. What I can't understand is why you'd be so worked up over something so minor, and I showed you some examples of how this sort of thing happens every day. That doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with the practices. It means that they are minor. Minor as in, when I go into a bank and they ask me to take off my hat, I take it off. I don't look around for someone to sue. These things are background noise that shouldn't rise to the level of annoyance. They're like seeing a person spit on the street. What are you going to do? Arrest them? It's a minor thing. Let it pass.

    If you're very, very paranoid and diligent about protecting society from schemes where some people are "more equal" than others, I'm surprised you think that an objectiom to parenting practices is stupid. Doesn't parenting assume that the parents are "more equal" than the children? What if your children are smarter than you? What rational basis do you have for telling them what to do? Would it be "because it's always been done that way"?

    As far as your judge engaging in flagrant abuse, I simply pointed out that a judge can uphold order in his court. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/2011_mcjc_rule2_8.authcheckdam.pdf Judges have great leeway in deciding how to do this. This one guy asked someone to pull up his pants. It's very, very unlikely that any review board will agree that this was abuse of any sort, much less flagrant abuse. However, if you want to try and file a complaint about this guy, file away. As I said, there are mechanisms in place for you to air your grievances. Just don't expect anyone to be sympathetic, because this sort of thing happens all the time and is deemed by most to be minor in the scheme of things that actually happen in court.

    Now, I'm going to see if I can keep a woman's children from being placed in foster care because she hasn't made them attend school. I'm going to be concerned about a few more things than the ways she's dressed. If the judge complains about the way she's dressed I will say "Yes, Judge. I will instruct my client to dress more appropriately next time.", carry on with trying to keep her kids out of foster care, and not let the complaint about her clothes bother me.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • 15 minutes till Healthcare Decision 2012!
  • CNN just said that individual mandate was struck down (maybe?)
  • They've got CNN going on the tv next to my cube on super loud, ugh. This is too depressing to listen to at work.
  • Multiple sources saying struck down.
  • edited June 2012
    We, as a country, really want to be China SO badly.

    In terms of worker protections and the "freedom" to get raped by robber barons, anyway.
    Post edited by muppet on
  • Roberts says individual mandate may be upheld as a tax but not under the commerce clause.
  • CNN now says the entire law has been upheld.
  • And Justice Roberts of all people had the deciding vote: the Affordable Care Act is all constitutional, with just the power of the government to strip states of Medicare funding being narrower than expected.
  • Multiple sources are saying the health care law has been upheld, but needs modification to continue (the commerce clause bit).
  • edited June 2012
    Multiple sources saying struck down.
    CNN now says the entire law has been upheld.
    That's what comes from trying to rush through reading a SCOTUS decision. They don't write for people with short attention spans.
    Multiple sources are saying the health care law has been upheld, but needs modification to continue (the commerce clause bit).
    The Commerce Clause is the Batman of the Constitution.


    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • edited June 2012
    I don't know; I'd say it's more like the Krypto the Super Dog of the Constitution?

    More:
    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/06/Supreme-Court-rules-on-Obama-health-care-plan-718037/1
    Post edited by Jason on
  • Activist judges! Socialism! Whargarbl!
  • Of course, I think the power of taxation is more relevant (or at least just as relevant) than the commerce clause in this case, since the penalty for not having insurance is a tax.
  • How dare they rule that its constitutional for poor/cripple people have the right to good health?! >O
  • Which is why it was written that way, I'm sure.

    This is a positive step towards national healthcare. A small step, but a good one.
  • How dare they rule that its constitutional for poor/cripple people have the right to good health?! >O
    I know! It's my right to die from an untreated sinus infection by god!

  • The Commerce Clause is the Batman of the Constitution.
    I don't know; I'd say it's more like the Krypto the Super Dog of the Constitution?
    Naw. Commerce sits there for years. No one really pays any attention to him. Then one day: BAM! Commerce becomes a complete badass and fucking OWNS all the rest of the Constitution. Total Batman.



  • In light of the new reboot, I think that would make it the Aquaman of the Constitution.
  • Meanwhile, in the Hall of Justice: Aquaman prepares a peanut butter and jelly sandwich because he can't do *shit*.
Sign In or Register to comment.