With a current verdict which paints a negative picture for the offense.....
I beg to differ. There are quite a few of us who have a problem with it. Hell, there are even prosecutors who have a problem with it, though they're too few and far between.This needs changed, but the legal association is all on board with it. Its about money/reputation/score card, not guilty or innocent.
Oh, I believe full well the scorecard exists, especially in the smaller offices (where the candidates know the voters personally, and have to answer for why the guy "everybody" knows "did it" got away with it...when they see those voters in church on Sunday, or at the local diner, or whatever).You would be in the small minority in that belief that the score card doesn't exist, especially in the elected County/ state offices.
I think you as a young idealistic attorney want to make things right, and I admire you for that position.
I've seen you on both sides, some what on the other, but when the education system is slanted to the right, it would be tough to come out of it non biased.
Enjoy the bantering.
Oh, I believe full well the scorecard exists, especially in the smaller offices (where the candidates know the voters personally, and have to answer for why the guy "everybody" knows "did it" got away with it...when they see those voters in church on Sunday, or at the local diner, or whatever).
I think you may be misinterpreting some of what I say as far as being on "both sides." If I'm thinking of the same thing you're thinking of, I often try to explain what the logic behind some decisions, cases, or principles are; that doesn't necessarily mean I hold to those positions, just that I'm trying to put them in context (though I do try to keep my principles steady, even when it means they'll benefit somebody who I believe to be in the wrong--principles are no principles at all if they're discarded when inconvenient).
As to the education system, I think I'd call it more slanted to the left (though "obey authority" seems to be a fairly universal commandment, if interpreted differently between the left and the right).
"(--(P)rinciples are no principles at all if they're discarded when inconvenient)".
It kind of is in there. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/controversy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_Controversy_Clausefor a good explanation; in short, the courts only hear actual cases or controversies between the parties. If I hit dennishoddy in the face, he might have a beef with me, but you don't; you have no controversy with me, and therefore standing to sue me for it. Standing (and the related doctrine of "mootness") work to keep only actual controversies before the courts (and even they have some exceptions; Roe v. Wade is an outstanding--and appropriate--example of a mootness exception*).One big stumbling block is the nowhere-in-the-Constitution edict that one must be injured by bad law to have standing in order to challenge a bad law, 'regulation,' or a simple misapplication of either law or 'regulation.'
Enter your email address to join: