Oh really?
Don't count on it. 
Posted on 04/13/2015 7:09:37 AM PDT by KeyLargo
Hillary ain’t winning.....thank God!
“As I recall, Stalin had “absolute civil immunity” too. We all know how well that worked out.”
How Many People Did Joseph Stalin Kill?
By Palash Ghosh @Gooch700 on March 05 2013 8:55 AM EST
Joseph Stalin, who died 60 years ago in Moscow, was a small man — no more than 5-foot-4. The abused son of a poor, alcoholic Georgian cobbler, Josef Vissarionovich Djughashvili (the future Stalin) also had a withered arm, a clubbed foot and a face scarred by small pox, but he stood very tall as one of history’s most prolific killers.
Stalin’s extremely brutal 30-year rule as absolute ruler of the Soviet Union featured so many atrocities, including purges, expulsions, forced displacements, imprisonment in labor camps, manufactured famines, torture and good old-fashioned acts of mass murder and massacres (not to mention World War II) that the complete toll of bloodshed will likely never be known.
An amoral psychopath and paranoid with a gangster’s mentality, Stalin eliminated anyone and everyone who was a threat to his power – including (and especially) former allies. He had absolutely no regard for the sanctity of human life.
But how many people is he responsible for killing?
In February 1989, two years before the fall of the Soviet Union, a research paper by Georgian historian Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev published in the weekly tabloid Argumenti i Fakti estimated that the death toll directly attributable to Stalin’s rule amounted to some 20 million lives (on top of the estimated 20 million Soviet troops and civilians who perished in the Second World War), for a total tally of 40 million.
http://www.ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kill-1111789
Oh really?
Don't count on it.
I almost never lose a prediction to the conventional wisdom. She ain’t winning. Count on it. Remember where you heard it.
So local judges now have an absolute license to act maliciously?
This is unbelievable. I’m pretty sure judges have been disrobed before. This three-judge panel should be disrobed too.
Speaking as a lawyer. . .
This result was entirely predictable.
There are some pretty strong policy reasons for the rule that judges should not be held liable for the damages caused by their decisions. Basically, because if they were, no one in his right mind would ever agree to be a judge.
I do think we could carve out some (fairly narrow) exceptions to this rule. One would be for cases like this one, where no reasonable person in the judge’s shoes could believe the judge has jurisdiction.
Another would be for when judges (especially appellate court judges) decide cases based on issues that haven’t been raised and briefed by the parties. This has happened to me quite a few times: I win all the issues that are raised to the court, but the court, without warning, goes off and decides the case based on some issue no one has raised or briefed. Of course, when it does this, it almost invariably gets the resolution of this issue wrong.
Under my proposal, if an appellate court wants to address an issue that hasn’t been briefed to it, it could do so—but it would have to raise the issue and give the parties a fair chance to address it first. In the state where I practice, the Court rules provide the appellate courts with this option, but it is very rarely used. To make sure this option is used, the Court should be held liable or subject to a penalty if it decides a case on an issue that wasn’t briefed (and if it is only subject to a penalty, whether or not it got the issue right or wrong).
One of my big peeves as a lawyer.
CWII Spark Ping — So, what does a guy have to do to get tarred, feathered, and “rode out on a rail” around here?
I pray you are right.
Question:
Why should judges be above the law?
In particular, the following law seems to only be relevant if applied to those occupying a governmental office, to include judges:
18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of lawMoreover, does not this opinion make the following of none effect:
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
so much for the law applying equally to all
Seems they have written a get out of jail free card for themselves and retroactively made legal judicial misconduct.
People to actually do it.
One might also argue it’s a violation of the patents of nobility clause.
here’s a question. what would the current administration do with that same absolute power? anything different except achieve higher numbers?
To be clear: judges to have the ability to enforce orders when someone’s found in contempt, and that can sometimes include jail. The problem is that this judge used an odd, inapplicable statute, to basically act as collection agency for the judgment of attorney’s fees.
If he’d used the general indirect criminal contempt statute, 42 Pa CS 4136, the fine would be limited to $100, jail 15 days, or both. (Buried in here: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=42&div=0&chpt=41.)
There’s also a specific statute under the domestic support law, 23 Pa CS 4345. (Buried in here: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=23&div=0&chpt=43&sctn=45&subsctn=0.) Under that law, contempt is punishable by up to 6 months in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or probation of up to a year (with “purge conditions” required, by which folks can get out of jail).
BUT. That’s specifically to enforce support orders - not pay-these-attorney’s-fees orders. (Creepily, this is the statute the Superior Court relied on, in a related case, to say it was ok for the judge to jail her.)
And, for further weirdness, every time she made a payment at the court, the clerk would note it as a “fine” or (fine). And they squeezed over $9,000 of “fines” out of her, under threat of more jail.
the pogroms just keep coming
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.