Comments on: Ninth Circuit: Lawrence v. Texas Never Even Mentioned Romer v. Eva — D’OH!!

By: krazy kagu

krazy kagu — Tue, 27 May 2008 05:32:53 +0000

The ACLU is a socialists organiztion founded by a communists it should lose its tax exempt status

By: narciso

narciso — Mon, 26 May 2008 03:07:10 +0000

This is not unlike the amicus briefs by the ACLU and other parties; in the Hamdi and Hamdan cases, that practically avoided pertinet case law on military tribunals and ‘enemy combatant detention
like ex parte Milligan, Mulligan, Qurin, Eisentrager; in favor of irrelevant like Councilman (how does the courtmartial of navy enlisted personnel relate to the determination of foreign nationals, violating the pre-requisites of Geneva convention; Article 3?)They don’t, that’s exactly why it was cited.

By: SPQR

SPQR — Sun, 25 May 2008 18:45:47 +0000

Still, I love to read a Kozinski opinion.

By: cfbleachers

cfbleachers — Sun, 25 May 2008 15:36:36 +0000

The 9th Circus is to sound judicial opinions, what the Mendoza line is to sound hitting in baseball.

Falling below the Mendoza line is a standing joke. It represents a level so utterly devoid of major league skill…as to render itself ab initio of such absurdly low quality, it does not merit further mention.

The Ninth Cicus has lowered itself repeatedly beneath the Mendoza line. Even if I empathize with a position of the party in which they have granted majority favor…the result is tainted by their misfortune of residing within the Ninth Circuit.

By: krazy kagu

krazy kagu — Sun, 25 May 2008 14:12:53 +0000

Its time to close down the 9th curcut court of supply them with better judges then the wackos they have now

By: JRM

JRM — Sun, 25 May 2008 02:02:46 +0000

Patrick, you would not have made it out of my training session for new prosecutors.

My motto: Reading is cheating.

Sure, the judge might ask you some question: “What are the elements of the crime?” Had you read the elements, you might know something. But it’s far more exciting to see if you can work out the elements of the crime on the fly. Plus, the judge is just showing off. Elements. Heh.

I suppose I approve of reading the 20-word blurbs in the annotated code if your only alternative is to go read the case, but why even that?

Whether in civil or criminal, you *could* go and read all the reports and depos and transcripts, but what if there are a lot of words in them? That is valuable Minesweeper time lost.

So here we have the Ninth Circuit. Their mistake wasn’t reading only some of the words in the SCOTUS opinion; it was reading any of them. Lame attempts to kowtow to “precedent” are the final chapter in the cheating readers’ arsenal, and we can’t have that.

I once again salute the Ninth Circuit. Reading can only lead to hardship. It is simply not something that lawyers should do.

–JRM, pretty sure that I’ll be in an R.B. post: “Prosecutors Willfully Ignorant.”

By: SPQR

SPQR — Sun, 25 May 2008 00:10:59 +0000

Reminds me of the old Supreme Court joke. The attorney stands up in front of the Supreme Court and opens with: “May it please the Court, we are appealing a decision of the Ninth Circuit … and we have other arguments …”