Anonymous wrote:Can we please move this to the Off-Topic forum? The Third Branch simply does not pay attention to politics. Thus, it's not fair to sully their good name here. Place this in the Off-Topic forum so people can discuss the likely change in LEGAL philosophy.

HAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAAAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Amy Klobuchar - http://www.startribune.com/nominee-or-not-klobuchar-in-the-mix-as-talk-swirls-around-supreme-court-seat/368791531

PaleoConPrep wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PaleoConPrep wrote:Obama will not appoint Scalias replacement. I can assure you 100% that the Republican Senate will not let it happen. The replacement will depend on who wins POTUS. I vote for Roy Moore. He would make a fine justice.

Alabama and the Ten Commandments. Yeah, he'd be perfect.

What's wrong with Alabama and the 10 Commandments? The people will ultimately decide. Everything depends on the election.If Trump or Cruz are elected President, I think Moore has a good shot.

Roy Moore? As in that clown who had to be removed from the Alabama Supreme Court for refusing to comply with an order issued by s federal court and toyed with the idea of seeking the nomination of the Constitution Party for President? Good luck with that. On the other hand it would be good blood sport watching him be ripped to shreds in the confirmation process.

Anonymous wrote:

What's wrong with Alabama and the 10 Commandments? The people will ultimately decide. Everything depends on the election.If Trump or Cruz are elected President, I think Moore has a good shot.

Um, the people have already decided. They elected Obama twice. That gives him the right to make this appointment.

AMEN.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but Jane Kelly doesn't get a pass for being a longtime federal public defender. Senator Grassley's payback only goes to the appellate slot, not the SUPREME COURT!!!

Although I would LOVE to see the Senate destroy Kelly and those "Federal Defender" prima donnas by extension.

You have a grudge against federal defenders? You're loony. Any other constitutionally required positions you vilify? I'm a prosecutor, but a grudge against federal defenders is batshit.

Dollars for Defenders, at least at the Federal level, are dollars taken away from the rest of the courts. They soak up money directly that could go to paying clerks (for one example). Plus, when the Defenders drag out cases with unnecessary and frivolous motions and investigations, they waste prosecutor and court timen working through these things.

Are you really a prosecutor? I would think prosecutors would want to tamp down runaway defenders. I would think the victims would want that too.

Yes I really am a federal prosecutor. Of all the things one could claim is wrong with the federal judicial system, the federal defenders are not one of them. You're wacky.

Duke doesn't help UNC-Greensboro recruit basketball players. So why on Earth would you want to help these people collect resources and talent that can beat you?

Go back to high school and learn basic civics. I'm an officer of the court and I swore an oath to uphold the constitution. Part of that is the accused's right to a competent defense. If they don't have that, then I could lock up innocent people. I don't want to do that.

Good for you. Thank you for having integrity.

I'm not special. Everyone I work with is the same way. And the federal defenders I know are also remarkably bright, ethical, dedicated people. It's one reason the federal system works so much better than most state justice systems. It's much less common for there to be false convictions in the federal system.
If PP wants to get mad at unethical defenders, get mad at the $1000/hour white collar criminal defenders who bury the prosecution in paper and break every rule they can.

This may be going a bit far.

An AUSA can bring the full might of the United States Government down on someone. They have the FBI, SEC, IRS, local law enforcement, the ability to wiretap on the basis of an affidavit, that may or may not be of dubious accuracy. The deck is stacked.

To say that AUSAs don't pursue dubious cases is pure fiction. To somehow state that you are disadvantaged against Ted Wells is farcical.

You guys do a great job. No doubt. I have a great deal of respect for your work. Let's just try to be a bit more realistic.

Oh I'm realistic. I experience it in reality. In white collar cases, against the big corporate types, the "full power of the govt" is usually just me and one intern against 3 law firms. I do my own copying. Don't bs me.

Yes! As a former AUSA, I remember spending nights doing paralegal work in preparation for trials. It was the hardest job, the pay wasn't worth the amount of time and energy that went into making sure your cases were put up in a proper well founded manner. I LOVED working with the federal defenders because they were competent, hard working and you litigated against them enough to build a history. The white collar defense types (all former AUSAs) loved to pull crap and questionably ethical things because they didn't appear in the same court house on a daily basis. They had one client. You and the defender had 50-200 cases on your docket.

I miss being an AUSA (I work in house now). But I would never knock a federal defender. They are doing really important work.

So when you and your legal assistant go up against three firms and a big company and issue subpoena that requires the production of millions of pages of documents that you know in advance you cannot possibly read if you spent every waking moment of your entire life reading them, that's ok? That exacting a financial penalty like that asking for things you will never ever look at is ok? That is the high ethical standard you comport yourself with? Good to know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but Jane Kelly doesn't get a pass for being a longtime federal public defender. Senator Grassley's payback only goes to the appellate slot, not the SUPREME COURT!!!

Although I would LOVE to see the Senate destroy Kelly and those "Federal Defender" prima donnas by extension.

You have a grudge against federal defenders? You're loony. Any other constitutionally required positions you vilify? I'm a prosecutor, but a grudge against federal defenders is batshit.

Dollars for Defenders, at least at the Federal level, are dollars taken away from the rest of the courts. They soak up money directly that could go to paying clerks (for one example). Plus, when the Defenders drag out cases with unnecessary and frivolous motions and investigations, they waste prosecutor and court timen working through these things.

Are you really a prosecutor? I would think prosecutors would want to tamp down runaway defenders. I would think the victims would want that too.

Yes I really am a federal prosecutor. Of all the things one could claim is wrong with the federal judicial system, the federal defenders are not one of them. You're wacky.

Duke doesn't help UNC-Greensboro recruit basketball players. So why on Earth would you want to help these people collect resources and talent that can beat you?

Go back to high school and learn basic civics. I'm an officer of the court and I swore an oath to uphold the constitution. Part of that is the accused's right to a competent defense. If they don't have that, then I could lock up innocent people. I don't want to do that.

Good for you. Thank you for having integrity.

I'm not special. Everyone I work with is the same way. And the federal defenders I know are also remarkably bright, ethical, dedicated people. It's one reason the federal system works so much better than most state justice systems. It's much less common for there to be false convictions in the federal system.
If PP wants to get mad at unethical defenders, get mad at the $1000/hour white collar criminal defenders who bury the prosecution in paper and break every rule they can.

This may be going a bit far.

An AUSA can bring the full might of the United States Government down on someone. They have the FBI, SEC, IRS, local law enforcement, the ability to wiretap on the basis of an affidavit, that may or may not be of dubious accuracy. The deck is stacked.

To say that AUSAs don't pursue dubious cases is pure fiction. To somehow state that you are disadvantaged against Ted Wells is farcical.

You guys do a great job. No doubt. I have a great deal of respect for your work. Let's just try to be a bit more realistic.

Oh I'm realistic. I experience it in reality. In white collar cases, against the big corporate types, the "full power of the govt" is usually just me and one intern against 3 law firms. I do my own copying. Don't bs me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but Jane Kelly doesn't get a pass for being a longtime federal public defender. Senator Grassley's payback only goes to the appellate slot, not the SUPREME COURT!!!

Although I would LOVE to see the Senate destroy Kelly and those "Federal Defender" prima donnas by extension.

You have a grudge against federal defenders? You're loony. Any other constitutionally required positions you vilify? I'm a prosecutor, but a grudge against federal defenders is batshit.

Dollars for Defenders, at least at the Federal level, are dollars taken away from the rest of the courts. They soak up money directly that could go to paying clerks (for one example). Plus, when the Defenders drag out cases with unnecessary and frivolous motions and investigations, they waste prosecutor and court timen working through these things.

Are you really a prosecutor? I would think prosecutors would want to tamp down runaway defenders. I would think the victims would want that too.

Yes I really am a federal prosecutor. Of all the things one could claim is wrong with the federal judicial system, the federal defenders are not one of them. You're wacky.

Duke doesn't help UNC-Greensboro recruit basketball players. So why on Earth would you want to help these people collect resources and talent that can beat you?

Go back to high school and learn basic civics. I'm an officer of the court and I swore an oath to uphold the constitution. Part of that is the accused's right to a competent defense. If they don't have that, then I could lock up innocent people. I don't want to do that.

Good for you. Thank you for having integrity.

I'm not special. Everyone I work with is the same way. And the federal defenders I know are also remarkably bright, ethical, dedicated people. It's one reason the federal system works so much better than most state justice systems. It's much less common for there to be false convictions in the federal system.
If PP wants to get mad at unethical defenders, get mad at the $1000/hour white collar criminal defenders who bury the prosecution in paper and break every rule they can.

This may be going a bit far.

An AUSA can bring the full might of the United States Government down on someone. They have the FBI, SEC, IRS, local law enforcement, the ability to wiretap on the basis of an affidavit, that may or may not be of dubious accuracy. The deck is stacked.

To say that AUSAs don't pursue dubious cases is pure fiction. To somehow state that you are disadvantaged against Ted Wells is farcical.

You guys do a great job. No doubt. I have a great deal of respect for your work. Let's just try to be a bit more realistic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but Jane Kelly doesn't get a pass for being a longtime federal public defender. Senator Grassley's payback only goes to the appellate slot, not the SUPREME COURT!!!

Although I would LOVE to see the Senate destroy Kelly and those "Federal Defender" prima donnas by extension.

You have a grudge against federal defenders? You're loony. Any other constitutionally required positions you vilify? I'm a prosecutor, but a grudge against federal defenders is batshit.

Dollars for Defenders, at least at the Federal level, are dollars taken away from the rest of the courts. They soak up money directly that could go to paying clerks (for one example). Plus, when the Defenders drag out cases with unnecessary and frivolous motions and investigations, they waste prosecutor and court timen working through these things.

Are you really a prosecutor? I would think prosecutors would want to tamp down runaway defenders. I would think the victims would want that too.

Yes I really am a federal prosecutor. Of all the things one could claim is wrong with the federal judicial system, the federal defenders are not one of them. You're wacky.

Duke doesn't help UNC-Greensboro recruit basketball players. So why on Earth would you want to help these people collect resources and talent that can beat you?

Go back to high school and learn basic civics. I'm an officer of the court and I swore an oath to uphold the constitution. Part of that is the accused's right to a competent defense. If they don't have that, then I could lock up innocent people. I don't want to do that.

Good for you. Thank you for having integrity.

I'm not special. Everyone I work with is the same way. And the federal defenders I know are also remarkably bright, ethical, dedicated people. It's one reason the federal system works so much better than most state justice systems. It's much less common for there to be false convictions in the federal system.
If PP wants to get mad at unethical defenders, get mad at the $1000/hour white collar criminal defenders who bury the prosecution in paper and break every rule they can.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but Jane Kelly doesn't get a pass for being a longtime federal public defender. Senator Grassley's payback only goes to the appellate slot, not the SUPREME COURT!!!

Although I would LOVE to see the Senate destroy Kelly and those "Federal Defender" prima donnas by extension.

You have a grudge against federal defenders? You're loony. Any other constitutionally required positions you vilify? I'm a prosecutor, but a grudge against federal defenders is batshit.

Dollars for Defenders, at least at the Federal level, are dollars taken away from the rest of the courts. They soak up money directly that could go to paying clerks (for one example). Plus, when the Defenders drag out cases with unnecessary and frivolous motions and investigations, they waste prosecutor and court timen working through these things.

Are you really a prosecutor? I would think prosecutors would want to tamp down runaway defenders. I would think the victims would want that too.

Yes I really am a federal prosecutor. Of all the things one could claim is wrong with the federal judicial system, the federal defenders are not one of them. You're wacky.

Duke doesn't help UNC-Greensboro recruit basketball players. So why on Earth would you want to help these people collect resources and talent that can beat you?

Go back to high school and learn basic civics. I'm an officer of the court and I swore an oath to uphold the constitution. Part of that is the accused's right to a competent defense. If they don't have that, then I could lock up innocent people. I don't want to do that.

Good for you. Thank you for having integrity.

Leah Ward Sears former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia. Sears was the first African-American female Chief Justice in the United States.

Ex-Luv Guv and NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but Jane Kelly doesn't get a pass for being a longtime federal public defender. Senator Grassley's payback only goes to the appellate slot, not the SUPREME COURT!!!

Although I would LOVE to see the Senate destroy Kelly and those "Federal Defender" prima donnas by extension.

You have a grudge against federal defenders? You're loony. Any other constitutionally required positions you vilify? I'm a prosecutor, but a grudge against federal defenders is batshit.

Dollars for Defenders, at least at the Federal level, are dollars taken away from the rest of the courts. They soak up money directly that could go to paying clerks (for one example). Plus, when the Defenders drag out cases with unnecessary and frivolous motions and investigations, they waste prosecutor and court timen working through these things.

Are you really a prosecutor? I would think prosecutors would want to tamp down runaway defenders. I would think the victims would want that too.

Yes I really am a federal prosecutor. Of all the things one could claim is wrong with the federal judicial system, the federal defenders are not one of them. You're wacky.

Duke doesn't help UNC-Greensboro recruit basketball players. So why on Earth would you want to help these people collect resources and talent that can beat you?

Go back to high school and learn basic civics. I'm an officer of the court and I swore an oath to uphold the constitution. Part of that is the accused's right to a competent defense. If they don't have that, then I could lock up innocent people. I don't want to do that.

Sri for sure.