Posted on 01/30/2019 6:04:30 AM PST by Mariner
Stone won’t get a fair trial...Obama Judge Amy Berman Jackson will protect “MULE and Rosenwiener”!
...Innocent until proven guilty...
~~~
Just because you haven’t been convicted of anything yet doesn’t mean you have all these rights. They can incarcerate you indefinitely if they say you’re a flight risk, even without bail. If you don’t have option for bail, they can say you have the right to request a speedy trial. If you are released, they can tell you where you can’t go. Not convicted by you can’t leave town. Free people can leave town.
So if people who are charged with a crime can have most of their other rights restrained, why not the first amendment too?
Most people would agree that the whole thing is a gray area. It’s just where you land inside that wide area that is the question. Some would suggest that the court needs virtually unrestrained power in order to ensure that it can process justice (until it happens to them or someone they care about) Others would probably suggest that someone should have almost all of their rights if they haven’t been convicted (until a recently arrested but released serial killer goes out and does it again).
FIRST AMENDMENT
Roger Stone is a journalist.
He is a good journalist who reaches millions of people daily.
“Congress shall make no law ...
abridging the freedom of the press”
Judges and Mueller are now gagging the press.
If a prosecutor, a lawyer, says gag order and the judge, also a lawyer, says okay then it doesn’t seem to matter what the Constitution says.
Their problem is that Stone is an insider who has dirt on all of the Washington DC insiders and he’s not going to shut up.
Well, they don't call them "The Sheeple" for nothing...
As long as the dimocraps have their narcotics everything is OK..
Bingo, spot on. She sounds to be inflamed already.
It really sucks when Bobby Mueller and his Clintoonista Shysters tag you to be one of their “ham sammiches”.
Many of his personal responses regarding Mueller, POTUS (may re-election be upon him) and his arrest are already in the public arena.
His repeating those statements is protected by the 1st Amendment.
:: Chief Justice John Roberts assured us that there is no such thing. ::
Projection...it’s what they do.
Yet, his arrest was nationally televised...
Memo to judge:
We the people have four boxes available to us:
The soapbox, which the defendants are gagged while the government suppresses evidence;
The ballot box, which is tainted by massive voter fraud,yielding a false Congress;
The jury box - which is corrupted by political beliefs; and
The fourth box - cracked, but not yet open. DON’T MAKE US OPEN IT.
Yours is a very thoughtful post, and raises very important issues.
From my perspective, the principle that should be applied is that those charged with a crime retain their rights unless there is a reasonable expectation or concern that allowing them their rights would put others in society at risk. Clearly, being allowed to speak on your own behalf and dispute the charges against you, particularly in the case of a process crime such as Stone is being accused of, does not represent any risk to the public.
Regarding the power of the judiciary, I believe strongly that every single judge should have their casework reviewed intermittently by a group of private citizens who grade them on their perceived fairness, consistency, and that their decisions are predicted on a solid legal principles. Obviously, the legal foundations of their work would ultimately have to be reviewed by attorneys, but at least this type of review would flag potential problems that would then require further review.
Voting for retention or appointment of judges isn’t an adequate way to ensure they are acting appropriately. Most people have no idea about the judges whose names wind up on ballots. We need oversight of judges by people outside of the legal system.
Regarding the power of the judiciary, I believe strongly that every single judge should have their casework reviewed intermittently by a group of private citizens who grade them on their perceived fairness, consistency, and that their decisions are predicted on a solid legal principles.
~~~
Is there anything even remotely close to this being done anywhere?
I can understand how judges wouldn’t want to be scrutinized, particularly in today’s political climate. They would fear that a review might target them for reasons that don’t actually appear in the review that is used against them.
However, the opposite problem is arguably even more dangerous; a judiciary with zero expectation of being held personally accountable is a recipe for corruption. As we have seen in other institutions, protected positions and appointments have CONs (corrupt lack of accountability) that significantly outweigh the PROs (un-influenced pursuit of professional direction).
Incidentally, it seems we, as a society, can't have discussions of the type that we are having at a small level online. Counterpoints get shouted down, and the person who voices them is condemned.
It’s getting worse and it’s beyond tiresome even trying to stay civil with these lunatics. I’m to the point with a member of my own family that I just say you’re wrong, you’re nuts and I’m done being polite with someone who wants to wreck my country.
We'll get it back by busting a cap in those that made it one (like this judge and Mueller); that's the reset button.
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.