Posted on 07/03/2017 10:44:16 AM PDT by rarestia
MIAMI --
A judge has ruled that Florida's lawmakers overstepped their authority in updating the state's "Stand Your Ground" ruling.
Ruling issued Monday by Miami-Dade circuit judge Was signed into law in June by Gov. Rick Scott
In ruling the law unconstitutional, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch said Monday that the changes should have been crafted by the Florida Supreme Court instead of by the Legislature.
The Miami Herald reports that the 14-page order is a victory for prosecutors who have firmly opposed the law.
Critics have said the law makes it easier for defendants to get away with murder and other violent crimes.
The Legislature modified the 2005 statute and Gov. Rick Scott signed it into law in June. The bill was backed by the National Rifle Association.
Under the law, prosecutors must prove by "clear and convincing" evidence that someone wasn't acting in self-defense.
What part of the constitution, specifically, is he citing?
"must prove by "clear and convincing evidence..."
You mean we're expected to presume innocence?
Yet another activist judge.
JoMa
quote “the changes should have been crafted by the Florida Supreme Court instead of by the Legislature”
???
what alternate universe does this guy live in?
So according to Judge Milton Hirsch laws are made by judges wearing Auto De Fe style robes and not by elected representatives of a legislature?
My guess? Blow smoke up proles butts to keep them thinking they voted for some Constitutional governance, plus clean the Womynz room at the courts building.
Simple.
The judge is an asshole and should be removed.
The judiciary does not make law.
_______________________________________________________
Imo, the judge is a criminal. It may not be law yet, but it damn well needs to be made law soon, if there’s going to be any respect for the rule of law.
Break your oath of office or break the boundaries set for your office or in any way attempt to mutate the meaning of The Constitution to fit your own whims and desires, go to prison.
Excuse me? Are you serious? These Leftist activist judges are now not just covertly changing the law, but here overtly and openly demanding the judiciary wench the lawmaking power from the legislature which of course undermines the protective separation of powers. Incredible. How I hate the Left.
Excuse me?
I saw this and I really had to check whether the source was a satire site. I couldn't believe that any judge would be that openly arrogant.
Judge Milton Hirsch said Monday that the changes should have been crafted by the Florida Supreme Court instead of by the Legislature.
Is this a joke?
Me thinks that there is at least one Miami-Dade Circuit Court judge that needs replacement STAT, if he/she/it isn't aware of the different powers between the legislative and judicial branches.
Where is the Fed DOJ on this???
But see the following Florida Satutes that contain burden material:
768.72 Pleading in civil actions; claim for punitive damages
768.725 Punitive damages; burden of proof
775.027 Insanity defense
777.201 Entrapment
Control World Climate and sea levels, of course.
You know, the little stuff...
We really need a conservative group to try to impeach judges that do whatever they please and ignore the law and the constitution. Yes they probably will not be successful, but at least it might make some of these judges rethink their methods.
If I have this correctly, here we have a judge ordering that legislation be LEGISLATED FROM THE BENCH.
This wannabe little tyrant needs to be impeached and removed from his judgeship, forthwith.
“If I remember correctly, wasn’t the “Duty to flee” laws written to prevent blacks from defending their homes from the boys in the white hoods?”
I think it was written to get white Southerners to flee their homes from Northern Carpetbaggers and their Yankee enforcers.
Florida Constitution, Article V, Section 2(a). He claims that burden shifting and burden quantum (preponderance, clear and convincing, beyond a reasonable doubt) are procedural, so can't be established or changed by "ordinary legislation."
Excellent point. I hadn't thought of that but now that I re-read the article, it makes perfect sense. The author writes that the decision is 14 pages, so he has clearly seen it. If he read it he would know that it's focused on a procedural issue and he is not ruling that the concept of stand your ground is unconstitutional. And yet the quotes in the article are all about the substance of the law rather than the procedural issue.
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.