Chicken Cannon Lovers

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message

Our Federal judges serve for life or good behavior (U.S. Constitution,
Art.
III, Sec. 1).


So are Canadian judges

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/trib/page4.html

No, not exactly.

Their "security of tenture" seems to be based on statute, not Constitution
(although I may be mistaken; the source of the tenure is not clearly
stated).

They may be removed for ethical violations by a council of other judges (who
may or may not be subject to political pressure).

A U.S. Federal judge holds a lifetime commission and can only be removed by
impeachment. Very few have suffered this fate.

Note that financial security also flows from the Constitution.
Administrative independance has a clear basis in common law.

Not much can happen to such an official who does get "tied down" in
trivia.


Except that he becomes unable to spend time on important matters.

Indeed. But it is the judge, him/herself that determines what is or is not
important.

It's not perfect but it helps

Perhaps. On the other hand it does keep the heavy hand of any given
administration from bringing direct pressure on judges for some specific
outcome.

Bill Kambic



How does spending time on trivial cases do that exactly ?

It doesn't.

The point Peter makes is valid. There have been similar cases
in the UK where a trial judge found for the prosecution on
the point of law but gave the defendant an absolute discharge
and made the prosecution pay his costs after lecturing the
prosecuting counsel about bringing such trivial matters before
the court. This ****ed off the Crown Prosecution Service to be sure
but was hardly evidence of the subservience of judges, quite
the reverse in fact.

Never suggested that British or Commonwealth judges don't have a measure of
independance. Just that their power, and their degree of independance, flow
from Parliament (if that's how the legislature is styled).

I have also seen Federal and state court judges dismiss cases where the
defendant was clearly guilty with costs to the state and give the prosecutor
a first class "red ass" for wasting the court's time. I have also seen
judges at both levels reject plea agreements because it was too lienient and
force the case to trial.

An independant judiciary is a Very Good Thing, but no guarantee against
judicial silliness.

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

"Peter Skelton" wrote in message

Judges here are not subject to job pressure from politicians,

With all due respect, if you believe this then you have not spent much time
down at the local court house!G

but
there is a certain amount of peer review, and their decisions
are, of course, public knowledge.

Ayup.

How do you react to a coworker
who's anal slowness keeps you from your family or who's nasty
behaviour makes customers yell at you?

Depends on the coworker!g

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message

No, because that would deny the legal beagles another source of perpetual
income

Balderdash.

It's because if you want to protect something an easy way is to make private
possesion of that something, or anything associated with it, a crime. This
means all the prosecution has to do is show that you possessed it. You
don't even have to have actual knowledge of the possession.

(I.E., if you lend your car to a friend and that friend smokes a joint in
the car and leaves the roach in the ash tray you can be found guilty of
simple possesion of MJ even if you could show that you did NOT have actual
knowledge of the roach. The law presumes you are in possesion of all items
in your vehicle. So if you possessed the vehicle you possessed the MJ.
Next case.)

--if we ruled out frivolous criminal charges and (worse yet) frivolous
lawsuits, half of the esteemed bar would perish due to lack of business.

Rubbish. They would just dream up new methods of employement.

No
to mention the enforcement branch bureaucrats out scratching for
violations
of these stupid laws--not a lot of need for the skills of your average
"possum cop" in the private sector. Of course, we could carry out
significant legal reforms...if the lawyers were not so entrenched in our
political process. So the vicious cycle continues.

Yeah, nobody likes lawyers 'till they hear the words, "You have the right to
remain silent."

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

"Bill Kambic" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message

No, because that would deny the legal beagles another source of
perpetual
income

Balderdash.

See what I mean? A simple tongue-in-cheek remark and the ambulance chasing
lobby is out in arms...

Brooks

snip long winded response from a gent who forgot to turn his humor switch
on this morning

"Jim E" wrote in message
...


The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact.

I live a few blocks from Boeing's chicken gun. No idea if they're using
fresh or frozen.

I live in Everett Wa near a fair size Boeing plant.
Wonder if we have a gun locally?

It's up in Marysville, behind the new Tulalip casino (unless the casino
pushed it out). There's a Boeing test complex hidden behind the trees there.
--
Zamboni

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message

No, because that would deny the legal beagles another source of
perpetual
income

Balderdash.

See what I mean? A simple tongue-in-cheek remark and the ambulance chasing
lobby is out in arms...

Ah, you must have an almighty small tongue 'cause I couldn't see it in your
cheek. Or maybe you were turning the other cheek?

Or maybe we are speaking of the wrong set of cheeks!!!g

But, since you claim it was there, I won't send you a bill for the legal
advice!g

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

In t,
Kevin Brooks radiated into the WorldWideWait:

Nor the USF&WS prohibition against said "indigenous" peoples even
giving gifts that include such feathers to non-Indians (to use the
polically incorrect term), which IMHO is just further stupidity
heeped upon that imbecility you note.

It's a Murphy's Law, but I can't recall which: No Subject, Topic or
Idea is Too Trivial, Stupid or Inconsequential to Have a Law Passed
Concerning It.

In t,
Kevin Brooks radiated into the WorldWideWait:
"Bill Kambic" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message

No, because that would deny the legal beagles another source of
perpetual income

Balderdash.

See what I mean? A simple tongue-in-cheek remark and the ambulance
chasing lobby is out in arms...

LOL!

"Bill Kambic" wrote:


A U.S. Federal judge holds a lifetime commission and can only be removed by
impeachment. Very few have suffered this fate.

Impeachment [i.e., House of Representatives charging a "crime"]
*and* conviction by the Senate removing the judge. Impeachment
doesn't result in removal. Only conviction of the offenses for
which the official was impeached.

One of the few judges impeached by the House and convicted by the
Senate got his revenge. Election to the House of Representatives
that impeached him. He's still serving, having been reelected
regularly.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

"Ogden Johnson III" wrote in message

A U.S. Federal judge holds a lifetime commission and can only be removed
by
impeachment. Very few have suffered this fate.

Impeachment [i.e., House of Representatives charging a "crime"]
*and* conviction by the Senate removing the judge. Impeachment
doesn't result in removal. Only conviction of the offenses for
which the official was impeached.

The verb "to impeach" means to accuse, charge a liability on, or to sue. In
the context in which it was in the Consititution of the U.S. (and in that of
most states) it means a proceeding charging a public official with mis, mal,
or non-feasance before a quasi-political court.

You are "impeached" when a bill of charges is brought before the
approprirate body. If you are convicted by the finders of fact there seems
to be no other specific term of art (at least I can't find oneg). So
"impeachment" may have a double, if sloppy, meaning.

One of the few judges impeached by the House and convicted by the
Senate got his revenge. Election to the House of Representatives
that impeached him. He's still serving, having been reelected
regularly.

Ah, yes. Proving that impeachment is a political process, not a judicial
conviction.g

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.