Disorder in the Court

The Wall St. Journal ^ | Tuesday, June 18, 2002 | THOMAS J. BRAY

[tdadams]

Rumors in Washington has it that the House Judiciary Committee may hold hearings into the events surrounding the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' 5-4 decision upholding the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action program. In a rare break with judicial comity, two judges in the court publicly questioned the procedures that Chief Judge Boyce Martin, a Carter appointee, had set out in the case.

[tdadams]

It's very disturbing, and shakes the foundation of trust that the people have in the courts, to see judges and politicians engaging in this kind of egregious tampering with justice. It seems to be routine anymore for judicial activists that if they don't get the outcome they want, they change the rules and try it again until they prevail.

This recently occured in Tennessee, where House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh took a vote on an unconstitutional income tax. He got 45 of the 50 votes needed to pass the tax, but held the vote open for an unprecedented 2 hours while trying to whip up another 5 votes. When he couldn't get the needed votes after 2 hours, instead of conceding defeat, he adjourned the session and left the issue of the income tax open for another vote during a later session.

[KC Burke]

The Clinton Legacy is enduring.

[norraad]

The 1st DVD I ever got was "Disorder in the Court"(famous 3 stooges short) , very appropoé{sp?}.

". . . drop the venacular"

"..?..it's a Derby, judgy wudgy, nyuh, nyuh, nyuh"

[Redbob]

apropos

[Zon]

It's very disturbing, and shakes the foundation of trust that the people have in the courts, to see judges and politicians engaging in this kind of egregious tampering with justice.

A wee little bit seeps out and it's about time at least the tip of the iceberg come to the surface. Hopefully it can't be stopped. For it is a disservice (to put it very mildly) to maintain sham courts in order to procure a foundation of false trust from the citizens.

For example, up until 1893 judges routinely informed juries that their job was to judge the facts and the law as they may apply to the case at trial -- jury nullification.

[MamaTexan]

their job was to judge the facts and the law as they may apply to the case at trial -- jury nullification.

I wonder what the Judge would do if someone who was defending himself brought the subject up in court.

[Zon]

I'd be interested in hearing from someone with more courtroom experience, but my integration of the facts that I do have lead me to believe the judge would give a stern warning that would include mention of contempt of court if the self-defendant continued speaking of jury nullification.

[aristeides]

Time for Bush to make recess appointments to the Sixth Circuit.