Why Do Conservatives Still Love the Drug War?

Campaign for Liberty ^ | 2010-04-02 | Jacob Hornberger

[dragnet2]

What did you expect?

Your own government aids abets this violent invasion, panders to millions of Mexicans, and then forces you at gun point to pay for this epic lawlessness?

Did you not expect this to escalate into a national security issue?

Hell you last president was celebrating Cinco De Mayo up in the White House while millions of illegals marched through your streets making demands and threats.

Did you forget about all that?

[tacticalogic]

Oh, that’s your excuse? I thought it was because you long ago exhausted your stock of pertinent subject matter knowledge.

You're demonstrating an impressive ability to make erroneous assumptions.

[Rockingham]

Here's link to the Cato Institute brief in the Citizen's United case before the Supreme Court: Cato brief.

It's worth reading as an example of how lawyers deal with stare decisis and contrary precedents before the Supreme Court, and the Court itself deals with stare decisis in a major case.

Here are the opinions: Citizens United.

[tacticalogic]

(d) The relevant factors in deciding whether to adhere to stare decisis, beyond workability—the precedent’s antiquity, the reliance interests at stake, and whether the decision was well reasoned—counsel in favor of abandoning Austin, which itself contravened the precedents of Buckley and Bellotti. As already explained, Austin was not well reasoned.

Where is the explanation of the flaw in the reasoning of Hammer v Dagenhard in Darby?

They simply declare it to be wrong without providing any evidence to support that findig, and go from there.

[Rockingham]

You are quoting from a brief. Read the Citizens United opinions for how those concerns are treated by the Court.

[tacticalogic]

You are quoting from a brief. Read the Citizens United opinions for how those concerns are treated by the Court.

Okay.

Can I ask what is that my knowing about their opinion is expected to accomplish and what it is about their opinion that will be worth the time invested?

[Rockingham]

The benefit is an understanding of how the Court treats stare decisis, as opposed to how attorneys argue it in an amicus brief. I referred you to the Cato brief as they seem closest to your views on Raich and I surmise that in some fashion you are relying on Cato's work.

[tacticalogic]

I’m not familiar with this particular paper. I am familiar with the CATO Institute.

[tacticalogic]

The benefit is an understanding of how the Court treats stare decisis, as opposed to how attorneys argue it in an amicus brief.

Why don't the attorneys just argue it the way the court's going to treat it?

[Rockingham]

An attorney’s job is to advocate the best plausible result for his client. Guessing what the Court probably wants to do and leading them to it is often contrary to the client’s interest.

[tacticalogic]

Then two attorneys can make contradictory arguments based on the same stare decisis.

[Rockingham]

That is why cases go to court.

[tacticalogic]

That is why cases go to court.

That's not the point. Two attorneys can constuct contradictory arguments based on the same stare decisis. That means either stare decisis is subjective, or one of the attorneys is lying. Or possibly both.

[Rockingham]

Differences of opinion are common among lawyers and judges — and everyone else. Baseball experts differ over what the rules of the game mean; art experts differ over the merits of great works and the tenets of art; accountants differ on their professional rules; rabbis, priests, and ministers differ on how the moral rules of their faiths are interpreted and applied; and so on.

[tacticalogic]

Even the Founders had their diagreements.

Do attorneys argue that the opposition's arguments are motivated by criminality?

[Rockingham]

Prosecutors do, at times, civil lawyers, less rarely so.

[tacticalogic]

Prosecutors do, at times, civil lawyers, less rarely so.

And they'll do it, even knowing it isn't true, as long as they believe that strategy will help the convince the judge and/or jury to rule in their clients favor?

[Rockingham]

No, accusations of a crime can be made only if warranted by the facts and implications and the forum is appropriate. On the other hand, insults and casual aspersions can be make with some freedom if outside the presence of a jury.

I know of a well respected federal judge some years ago who, while setting bail release conditions for an organized crime figure, stated that the mobster was not to associate with criminals and disreputable persons. The mobster's lawyer objected on the basis that the condition was vague and could apply to old friends, even to to the lawyer.

The judge agreed that it could apply to the lawyer -- who was notorious in his own right -- and that the mobster should be careful of who he associated with if he wanted to stay out on bail. The lawyer's face reddened and he had the good sense to shut up and sit down.

Don't feel too bad for the mobster though. As in the past, he escaped conviction again, that time by tampering with the jury.

Ooops. There I go again. Accusing people of a crime.

[tacticalogic]

Ooops. There I go again. Accusing people of a crime.

Well, you're not in court so there can't won't be any consequences if you're wrong, will there?

[Rockingham]

I'll give you the specifics. The mobster was Harlan Blackburn. He ran bolita and conducted other criminal activities in Florida under Santo Trafficante. One of the shrewdest criminal minds of era, Trafficante was unusually skilled at corrupting law enforcement and politicians, penetrating legitimate businesses, and getting to juries.

The federal prosecutors presented an open and shut drug trafficking case against Blackburn -- informants, audio bugs and wiretaps, extensive surveillance by agents -- the works. When the jury retired for deliberations, one juror said to wake her when they were ready to acquit, leaned forward, put her head on a coast bundled into a makeshift pillow, closed her eyes, and went to sleep. The result was a hung jury.

After much additional effort, Blackburn was eventually convicted.