israel67 wrote:DParker wrote:israel67 wrote:That would never have worked. They'd have appealed and made sure the appeal was heard in front of a 'friendly' judge, who'd have struck down the original contempt of court ruling.
I'm curious to know how you think a mayor and a police chief could make sure that an appeal of a federal court order could be heard in front of a 'friendly' judge.
'connections'.
But that was in France, and as bad as it gets here, it is very difficult to find that kind of pervasive corruption in our judiciary. Wrongheadedness, yes. Lack of constitutional understanding, yes. But here, corruption in the judiciary tends to get dealt with fairly quickly, and fairly forcefully. The decision "products" of our court system in America are largely a matter of public record. Therefore, it is fairly easy for a litigant to find a court which has a record of rendering decisions in landmark cases that are favorable to the litigant's interest in the case at hand. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has such a reputation. Its decisions on social policy issues, for instance, are almost always in favor of a hard leftist interpretation. In fact, the 9th Circuits decisions are
so wacky that they hold the distinction of being the most overturned (by the Supreme Court) circuit court in the nation. Consequently, if you are an ACLU lawyer whose personal mission is to try and legalize gay marriage for instance, you start by finding a gay couple in California that is willing to be the plaintiffs against the state in such a suit, and then you bring that suit (eventually) to the 9th Circuit appellate court, where you know you are going to get a sympathetic hearing in front of the judges. Please note that it starts with a lawyer with an agenda (ACLU agenda, in this case), who then finds a client, and then finds a sympathetic court - instead of like most civil cases, where you start with an aggrieved client, who finds a lawyer, and then goes to court in the local court system.
And by the way, this is not restricted to just liberal causes.
Heller vs. DC is a conservative example of using the courts to effect conservative change, knowing that the case would eventually (as it did) wind up before the Supreme Court, where it would probably get a relatively sympathetic hearing.
But also please note (and this is just my personal observation) that when it comes to legislating from the bench, liberals tend to seek relief in the courts when they can't get popular sentiment to back their silliness; and they tend to rely on some pretty bizarre interpretations of the Constitution (research "emanations and penumbras") whereas conservatives only tend to seek relief in the courts when there is a serious and fundamental constitutional issue at risk, such as 2nd Amendment Rights (
Heller vs DC), or Equal Protection (
Bush vs Gore), or Freedom of Political Speech (
McConnell v. FEC).
By the way, one of my mother's very best friends whom my wife and son and I stayed with for a week while we were in Paris in 2005, is a retired justice from the Cour de Cassation - the French equivalent of our Supreme Court.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
