It’s no good at all, and a Republican Party that was serious about civil liberties would be able to have a field day with stuff like this. Too bad no such party exists …
“Federal judges routinely deny them, including for purely procedural reasons.” That is stated in the article, if she was part of the ruling one many of these type of things, and considered them, conservatives would have a field day. Looking for one where she did what most likely is the standard procedure and now she is a bad idea?
It is very easy to pull evidence either way on her putting her directly in the middle of the road, neither right or left.
I agree that this is no good at all for Sotomayor.
But, wouldn’t today’s GOP see this decision as a point in her favor?
— just some guy with an opinion · Jun 10, 09:07 PM · #
Olivia,
In this case, I think the criticism is that the middle of the road consensus among the judiciary results in innocent people spending years in prison on procedural grounds. Everybody does it? Okay. But like I said, if Sotomayor is supposed to be a good candidate due to her empathy, isn’t this a pretty clear case where empathy — as reasonable people would want it to be applied — demanded the opposite of what she did?
I’m curious, Conor. Would you rather the Appeals court ignore the procedural violation, or are you fine with what they did?
(I know your point is a narrow one: this episode is a strike against Sotomayor’s empathy cred. I agree. But the normative issue here is the most interesting one.)
There are lots of reasons for a judge to demand strict compliance with (seemingly arbitrary) procedure — some good, some bad. What say you on this subject?
I’m no lawyer but what sense does it make to punish the defendent(?) when it was his lawyer who screwed up? If the lawyer made a “procedural violation” punish him but SIXMOREYEARS!!, that’s low down! And, even if the defendent screwed up, isn’t six years a bit severe, what is this Russia, 1921?
It is the contrasting of empathy (with the inherent chaos such determinations would result in) versus order (with its hard edged lack of compassion). If we give up on observing the rules and procedures of the law of the land, what confidence would we have that an impartial legal system would treat individuals as equal before the law? I have sympathy for Mr. Deskovic, and abhor the failure on the part of his lawyer, but I am uncertain that a different action on the part of the court was justified, given the circumstances available at the time of the ruling.
It’s no good at all, and a Republican Party that was serious about civil liberties would be able to have a field day with stuff like this.
As a civil libertarian first and a Dem second, I just want to say that I would not mind seeing today’s GOP, waterboarders and all, have a field day with this. This was wrong, and trouble ought to be made for whoever was responsible for this, whatever the motivations of the troublemaker might happen to be. So if the GOP wants to take this and run with it, all I can say is “Good hunting.”
It’s no good at all, and a Republican Party that was serious about civil liberties would be able to have a field day with stuff like this. Too bad no such party exists …
— John Schwenkler · Jun 10, 06:59 PM · #
“Federal judges routinely deny them, including for purely procedural reasons.” That is stated in the article, if she was part of the ruling one many of these type of things, and considered them, conservatives would have a field day. Looking for one where she did what most likely is the standard procedure and now she is a bad idea?
It is very easy to pull evidence either way on her putting her directly in the middle of the road, neither right or left.
— olivia · Jun 10, 07:13 PM · #
I agree that this is no good at all for Sotomayor.
But, wouldn’t today’s GOP see this decision as a point in her favor?
— just some guy with an opinion · Jun 10, 09:07 PM · #
Olivia,
In this case, I think the criticism is that the middle of the road consensus among the judiciary results in innocent people spending years in prison on procedural grounds. Everybody does it? Okay. But like I said, if Sotomayor is supposed to be a good candidate due to her empathy, isn’t this a pretty clear case where empathy — as reasonable people would want it to be applied — demanded the opposite of what she did?
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jun 10, 09:07 PM · #
I’m curious, Conor. Would you rather the Appeals court ignore the procedural violation, or are you fine with what they did?
(I know your point is a narrow one: this episode is a strike against Sotomayor’s empathy cred. I agree. But the normative issue here is the most interesting one.)
There are lots of reasons for a judge to demand strict compliance with (seemingly arbitrary) procedure — some good, some bad. What say you on this subject?
— Sargent · Jun 10, 09:20 PM · #
I’m no lawyer but what sense does it make to punish the defendent(?) when it was his lawyer who screwed up? If the lawyer made a “procedural violation” punish him but SIX MORE YEARS!!, that’s low down! And, even if the defendent screwed up, isn’t six years a bit severe, what is this Russia, 1921?
— Bob Cheeks · Jun 10, 09:31 PM · #
It is the contrasting of empathy (with the inherent chaos such determinations would result in) versus order (with its hard edged lack of compassion). If we give up on observing the rules and procedures of the law of the land, what confidence would we have that an impartial legal system would treat individuals as equal before the law? I have sympathy for Mr. Deskovic, and abhor the failure on the part of his lawyer, but I am uncertain that a different action on the part of the court was justified, given the circumstances available at the time of the ruling.
— nicholas · Jun 10, 10:15 PM · #
It’s no good at all, and a Republican Party that was serious about civil liberties would be able to have a field day with stuff like this.
As a civil libertarian first and a Dem second, I just want to say that I would not mind seeing today’s GOP, waterboarders and all, have a field day with this. This was wrong, and trouble ought to be made for whoever was responsible for this, whatever the motivations of the troublemaker might happen to be. So if the GOP wants to take this and run with it, all I can say is “Good hunting.”
— Consumatopia · Jun 10, 11:20 PM · #