Listened to some of the arguments today. The politicization of the court is complete. Whatever stare decisis meant, and frankly the answer may well always have been "not that much," it is out the window now. Should the court makeup ever swing majority-liberal many prior decisions can and will be easily revisited. In fact a willingness to do so may well be viewed postively in candidates rather than the current facade of sticking to prior precedent. Pretty sad overall no matter what side of the issue you're on.
There are some pretty strident folks on both sides of the abortion debate that don't really care about institutional damage as collateral damage to getting the outcome they want. I loathe abortion fanatics. Sick of their shit.
I listened to the entire argument and am not sure I agree with your comments on stare decisis. Casey was quoted by Breyer as the handbook on stare decisis. Yet as all of the justices agreed at various times in the argument, Casey was not exactly consistent with Roe (and Roe was considered a landmark case because it was like nothing before it). All justices agreed that Plessy->Brown was a good and necessary reversal of precedent that was wrong when Plessy was decided but unavoidable to change as society evolved.
Viability is an arbitrary line. It is a well reasoned arbitrary line but an arbitrary line nonetheless. Courts draw, erase and remark lines all of the time. What we call "precedent" for stare decisis are in fact often divided decisions representing divergence of legal, political and philsophical thought. Roe was 7-2. For purposes of precedent, Casey did not even have a majority with 4 justices effectively voting to reverse Roe and only 3 of 9 Justices in the plurality. What is cited as the central holdings in Casey had 3 (and never more than 5) out of 9 justices in agreement.
The problem with the cases that go to SCOTUS is that they're inherently political questions. If you're a hard core liberal, then you find justification for your beliefs in penumbras cast by ambiguous words in the constitution, and any other result is unconscionable. If you're a hard core conservative, then you find justification from the fact that no one ever specifically mentioned whatever thing is at issue in the Federalist Papers, so trying to impose it now is activism of an equally unconscionable degree. Putting yourself in either of those shoes, I think you can see why stare decisis wouldn't be given much credence.
The court is a joke and has lost all credibility. We've had to listen to the importance of stare decisis since time immemorial and suddenly it doesn't matter? How about women just be allowed to get health care and the government stay the hell out of it? It doesn't matter if there is a penumbra or what the hell they blathered on about in the Federalist Papers. People should mind their own damn business.
6:49 – I love that argument!! Now do one for jabs and masks. "How about people just be allowed to get health care they want and the government stay the hell out of it?" "People should mind their own damn business." Cool – I am onboard for freedom of healthcare choice (whether its to take the vaccine or wear a piece of ineffective cloth over your face)!
And before you go on saying something silly like – "bUt MaSkS EfFeCt OtHeRs!" – so does abortion…you know like the baby inside the woman.
Did @649 actually refer to the Federalist Papers as "blathering"? That's hilarious. That damn constitution is such an inconvenience and a barrier to true freedom, isn't it? Freedom for the Govt to show us what is what.
😀
Guest
Anonymous
December 1, 2021 9:07 pm
Virtual bench warrant quashing and toy drive event?
I admit I never practiced criminal law, but… what?
Guest
Anonymous
December 1, 2021 9:39 pm
Well, after reading the article this "Virtual Warrant Quashing Program" sounds like a good idea in theory, but not in practice.
Someone who is aware that they have serious warrants out there that they are ignoring, realize they are subject to arrest at any time. A lot of these people then resort to living on the fringes of society–nominal employment at best, shifting residential situations, driving around with no license or insurance, etc.
Those are generalizations, of course, but most of the time that is how people are living who have serious felony warrants they are ignoring. Such people would not be reading local news articles promoting such program.
Now if you counter that by saying what is if it a warrant based on something minor that could happen to anyone, no matter how responsible or reputable–such as non-appearance on a traffic issue. Well, if so, such responsible person would have already been taking actions to rectify the matter. They would not be sitting around ignoring it and then finally deciding to address it when this virtual program come along.
So, as a practical real life matter, this program accomplishes jack.
But it is well-intended.
Guest
Anonymous
December 1, 2021 9:42 pm
1:39, sounds kind of harsh, and you paint with broad strokes when you generalize.
That said, I kind of agree with what you are saying, based on my experience with such matters.
Guest
Anonymous
December 1, 2021 9:45 pm
1:39–don't necessarily disagree with you as to people who have serious felony warrants they are ignoring. Many of them live the way you suggest.
But this is a Municipal Court program, so these are warrants for far less serious matters-not felony warrants. So, it may be an effective program to some extent. We shall see.
Guest
Anonymous
December 2, 2021 1:00 am
Well, let's ask Ben Nadig to weigh in.
Is this virtual warrant quashing program(from North Vegas Muni.) of any real value or broad-based effectiveness?
WWBND? (Actually, the D should probably be a W since this is a writing blog)
Guest
Anonymous
December 2, 2021 1:01 am
Let's just set the record straight here. Nobody is talking about "serious felony warrants" being quashed.
North Las Vegas Justice Court is "working" with people who have misdemeanor warrants for things like moving violations or other minor matters that are heard at the Justice Court level.
And if you think that only hardened criminal types have trouble navigating the legal system or coming up with the money to pay fines, well, counselor, you are showing your privilege.
This isn't about a free ride. This is about giving an opportunity for people who are trapped in a a situation of "I can't pay this fine this week" from being trapped in a debt cycle of bench warrants, fines, and penalties that can prevent them to getting jobs that would let them out of the cycle our cause them to lose a job because they were in jail after being picked up on a bench warrant.
A program such as this allows "responsible" people to work with the court to pay their original fine and clear their case from the docket.
1:07 p.m., the toy drive? It's completely unrelated. It's an aside. The court, in addition to sponsoring the bench warrant clearing program, is also accepting toys for a toy drive. The bench warrant program is online. They toy drive is a physical drop off. There's two events. The only thing they have in common is that they are both being sponsored by the same court.
And this is hardly a groundbreaking program. The Las Vegas Muni Court is doing the same thing. Sponsored by the ACLU and a host of local attorney groups, they are offering the change for 300 low-income Nevadans the opportunity to have their traffic warrants quashed and the associate fines and fees waived on December 9. This is Muni court; these aren't murders, robbers, and rapists on the run from the law.
1:42 p.m., based on my experience, the sort of people who need help quashing minor traffic bench warrants are more clueless kids or hard-working family types than hardened criminals living on the outskirts of society.
Guest
Anonymous
December 2, 2021 1:06 am
5:01 p.m. here.
Of course, I meant North Las Vegas MUNI court. not Justice Court.
Which just proves my point. Practicing attorneys should know that municipal courts don't handle "serious felony warrants".
Listened to some of the arguments today. The politicization of the court is complete. Whatever stare decisis meant, and frankly the answer may well always have been "not that much," it is out the window now. Should the court makeup ever swing majority-liberal many prior decisions can and will be easily revisited. In fact a willingness to do so may well be viewed postively in candidates rather than the current facade of sticking to prior precedent. Pretty sad overall no matter what side of the issue you're on.
There are some pretty strident folks on both sides of the abortion debate that don't really care about institutional damage as collateral damage to getting the outcome they want. I loathe abortion fanatics. Sick of their shit.
I listened to the entire argument and am not sure I agree with your comments on stare decisis. Casey was quoted by Breyer as the handbook on stare decisis. Yet as all of the justices agreed at various times in the argument, Casey was not exactly consistent with Roe (and Roe was considered a landmark case because it was like nothing before it). All justices agreed that Plessy->Brown was a good and necessary reversal of precedent that was wrong when Plessy was decided but unavoidable to change as society evolved.
Viability is an arbitrary line. It is a well reasoned arbitrary line but an arbitrary line nonetheless. Courts draw, erase and remark lines all of the time. What we call "precedent" for stare decisis are in fact often divided decisions representing divergence of legal, political and philsophical thought. Roe was 7-2. For purposes of precedent, Casey did not even have a majority with 4 justices effectively voting to reverse Roe and only 3 of 9 Justices in the plurality. What is cited as the central holdings in Casey had 3 (and never more than 5) out of 9 justices in agreement.
The problem with the cases that go to SCOTUS is that they're inherently political questions. If you're a hard core liberal, then you find justification for your beliefs in penumbras cast by ambiguous words in the constitution, and any other result is unconscionable. If you're a hard core conservative, then you find justification from the fact that no one ever specifically mentioned whatever thing is at issue in the Federalist Papers, so trying to impose it now is activism of an equally unconscionable degree. Putting yourself in either of those shoes, I think you can see why stare decisis wouldn't be given much credence.
The court is a joke and has lost all credibility. We've had to listen to the importance of stare decisis since time immemorial and suddenly it doesn't matter? How about women just be allowed to get health care and the government stay the hell out of it? It doesn't matter if there is a penumbra or what the hell they blathered on about in the Federalist Papers. People should mind their own damn business.
6:49 – I love that argument!! Now do one for jabs and masks. "How about people just be allowed to get health care they want and the government stay the hell out of it?" "People should mind their own damn business." Cool – I am onboard for freedom of healthcare choice (whether its to take the vaccine or wear a piece of ineffective cloth over your face)!
And before you go on saying something silly like – "bUt MaSkS EfFeCt OtHeRs!" – so does abortion…you know like the baby inside the woman.
7:41 AM, I hope your effort to receive the Herman Cain Award is successful. You'll really own the libs with that acheivement!
I think the sad part is both sides of the abortion debate wish there were no such thing as abortion, but only one side is realistic about it.
Personally I believe if men were the gender to carry pregnancies abortions would be legal, cheap and after every 10 you'd get the 11th free.
Did @649 actually refer to the Federalist Papers as "blathering"? That's hilarious. That damn constitution is such an inconvenience and a barrier to true freedom, isn't it? Freedom for the Govt to show us what is what.
😀
Virtual bench warrant quashing and toy drive event?
I admit I never practiced criminal law, but… what?
Well, after reading the article this "Virtual Warrant Quashing Program" sounds like a good idea in theory, but not in practice.
Someone who is aware that they have serious warrants out there that they are ignoring, realize they are subject to arrest at any time. A lot of these people then resort to living on the fringes of society–nominal employment at best, shifting residential situations, driving around with no license or insurance, etc.
Those are generalizations, of course, but most of the time that is how people are living who have serious felony warrants they are ignoring. Such people would not be reading local news articles promoting such program.
Now if you counter that by saying what is if it a warrant based on something minor that could happen to anyone, no matter how responsible or reputable–such as non-appearance on a traffic issue. Well, if so, such responsible person would have already been taking actions to rectify the matter. They would not be sitting around ignoring it and then finally deciding to address it when this virtual program come along.
So, as a practical real life matter, this program accomplishes jack.
But it is well-intended.
1:39, sounds kind of harsh, and you paint with broad strokes when you generalize.
That said, I kind of agree with what you are saying, based on my experience with such matters.
1:39–don't necessarily disagree with you as to people who have serious felony warrants they are ignoring. Many of them live the way you suggest.
But this is a Municipal Court program, so these are warrants for far less serious matters-not felony warrants. So, it may be an effective program to some extent. We shall see.
Well, let's ask Ben Nadig to weigh in.
Is this virtual warrant quashing program(from North Vegas Muni.) of any real value or broad-based effectiveness?
WWBND? (Actually, the D should probably be a W since this is a writing blog)
Let's just set the record straight here. Nobody is talking about "serious felony warrants" being quashed.
North Las Vegas Justice Court is "working" with people who have misdemeanor warrants for things like moving violations or other minor matters that are heard at the Justice Court level.
And if you think that only hardened criminal types have trouble navigating the legal system or coming up with the money to pay fines, well, counselor, you are showing your privilege.
This isn't about a free ride. This is about giving an opportunity for people who are trapped in a a situation of "I can't pay this fine this week" from being trapped in a debt cycle of bench warrants, fines, and penalties that can prevent them to getting jobs that would let them out of the cycle our cause them to lose a job because they were in jail after being picked up on a bench warrant.
A program such as this allows "responsible" people to work with the court to pay their original fine and clear their case from the docket.
1:07 p.m., the toy drive? It's completely unrelated. It's an aside. The court, in addition to sponsoring the bench warrant clearing program, is also accepting toys for a toy drive. The bench warrant program is online. They toy drive is a physical drop off. There's two events. The only thing they have in common is that they are both being sponsored by the same court.
And this is hardly a groundbreaking program. The Las Vegas Muni Court is doing the same thing. Sponsored by the ACLU and a host of local attorney groups, they are offering the change for 300 low-income Nevadans the opportunity to have their traffic warrants quashed and the associate fines and fees waived on December 9. This is Muni court; these aren't murders, robbers, and rapists on the run from the law.
1:42 p.m., based on my experience, the sort of people who need help quashing minor traffic bench warrants are more clueless kids or hard-working family types than hardened criminals living on the outskirts of society.
5:01 p.m. here.
Of course, I meant North Las Vegas MUNI court. not Justice Court.
Which just proves my point. Practicing attorneys should know that municipal courts don't handle "serious felony warrants".