[grey_whiskers]

Realistically, the problem is some old Supreme Court ruling where the SCROTUMS (Supreme Court, Rulers of These United Metrosexual States) said that the prospect of losing a case was sufficient deterrent to prosecutors not to violate Brady, and that prosecutorial immunity should stay.

The Constitution gives Congress the power, when writing a law, to declare it exempt from Judicial Review. Congress should write such a law requiring mandatory (no trial) prison for prosecutors fabricating evidence or hiding evidence which proves the defendant guilty.

Together with mandatory disbarment for all prosecution / government lawyers assigned to the case.

[i_robot73]

>
The Constitution gives Congress the power, when writing a law, to declare it exempt from Judicial Review. Congress should write such a law requiring mandatory (no trial) prison for prosecutors fabricating evidence or hiding evidence which proves the defendant guilty.

Together with mandatory disbarment for all prosecution / government lawyers assigned to the case.
>

Concur.

Just another example of ‘3 co-equal branches’ being nothing more than a conspiracy vs. The People.

Love the SCROTUMS btw (wait, that didn’t come out right...)

[i_robot73]

I should correct myself a bit:

>
Congress should write such a law requiring mandatory (no trial) prison for prosecutors fabricating evidence or hiding evidence which proves the defendant guilty.
>

1) Wonder how that would work re: determining if such a law is Constitutional on its face

2) I’d leave it open to ANY ONE in govt

3) ...and wouldn’t have to be if they were found guilty. Proof of fabrication/hiding should be enough.

course, I’d expand it to include Judicial activism too :)