- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:31 pm to slackster
quote:
Are you suggesting they cannot declare a law unconstitutional? If a particular law is written in a way that makes it unconstitutional, can they not declare it as such?
You said "If they don't like the way the law is written, it's their job to do something about it. They quite literally have the ability to declare a law unconstitutional."
You think judges should be in the habit of declaring laws unconstitutional if "they dont like the way the law is written?" Are you familiar with the term "judicial activism?"
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:32 pm to fouldeliverer
quote:
In an opinion concurring with the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision to deny the man a writ of certiorari, Justice Scott Chricton insists that Demesme only "ambiguously referenced a lawyer."
Looks like the Supreme Court just summarily denied a writ without addressing the merits of the case. Crichton concurred and wrote a few paragraphs to say why he agreed.
So there was no holding from the Supreme Court. They never granted a writ to take up the case.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:36 pm to UpToPar
quote:
You think judges should be in the habit of declaring laws unconstitutional if "they dont like the way the law is written?" Are you familiar with the term "judicial activism?"
I should have worded it more clearly. I'm not a fan of judicial activism. My post was meant to address the idea that the court can only rule on the law as written, and that is clearly not the case. If/when the law is unconstitutional, they can make that determination as well.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:38 pm to fouldeliverer
Due process in a red state
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:38 pm to Twenty 49
Why don’t y’all give me a lawyer... is not asking for a lawyer. By the letter of the law I agree with the ruling. Give me a lawyer =/= can I have a lawyer
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:41 pm to UpToPar
quote:
The court ruled that the statement was ambiguous. And the quote is from a concurrence.
It's a horse shite concurring opinion. He explicitly says "lawyer dog" is ambiguous. I mean, come the frick on.
I'd love to read more about it, and if you've got anything else on the subject, post a link or two.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:41 pm to slackster
quote:
I'm not a fan of judicial activism.
Your post clearly indicates otherwise.
quote:
My post was meant to address the idea that the court can only rule on the law as written, and that is clearly not the case.
It’s not? Courts are asked to interpret the law as written.
quote:
If/when the law is unconstitutional, they can make that determination as well.
Sure, but this should have absolutely nothing to do with whether the judge “likes” the law or not.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:44 pm to slackster
quote:
He explicitly says "lawyer dog" is ambiguous. I mean, come the frick on
People are getting caught up on the “dog” part. If you delete “dog” from the quote the ruling and the concurrence would be the same.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:50 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
quote: No interrogation should occur without a lawyer at least present. Absolutely no reason we can't have a lawyer present. Should be completely automatic even if person denies wanting one. Wow.
Why wow? I agree
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:50 pm to fouldeliverer
The Supreme Court should be appointed. No way it could be worse.
This post was edited on 10/30/17 at 10:51 pm
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:53 pm to UpToPar
quote:
People are getting caught up on the “dog” part. If you delete “dog” from the quote the ruling and the concurrence would be the same.
If his statement was:
"If y'all think I did it, but I know I didn't do it, why don't y'all get me a lawyer, because this is bogus"
Would they still rule the same way? Genuinely curious as to your interpretation of the law.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:59 pm to UpToPar
quote:
judicial activism
A loaded term that is now used to disparage a court from performing one of the duties it is empowered to do
And usually you will see “judicial activism” used in reference to a court ruling against a law that is popular and may have actually been requested by the populous at large. However, this particular interpretation of the law isn’t really one of those legal instances. My guess is that this particular interpretation of a person NOT invoking his/her Miranda rights is extremely popular with law enforcement and DAs throughout the state.
The same state that incarcerates more of it’s population than any other state in the union.
Keep on trucking, Louisiana.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:00 pm to fouldeliverer
Even I understand he wanted a lawyer, dog!
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:01 pm to slackster
quote:
If his statement was:
"If y'all think I did it, but I know I didn't do it, why don't y'all get me a lawyer, because this is bogus"
Would they still rule the same way? Genuinely curious as to your interpretation of the law.
Yes. The court is applying precedent here though.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 2:18 am to fouldeliverer
His English may be poor, but that’s a real bitch move by the cops.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 2:47 am to Celery
quote:
His English may be poor, but that’s a real bitch move by the cops.
Man, the task of LE in Louisiana is to find someone to press charges against. If it’s the right person, then yay! Bonus. If it’s the wrong person then oh well. He was probably a criminal anyway.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 3:37 am to gthog61
quote:
What breed would make the best lawyer?
You need a pitbull in the courtroom.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 4:36 am to fouldeliverer
Does the ruling keep the child predator off the streets?
Posted on 10/31/17 at 4:57 am to TigerJeff
Dumbshit leftist did not read the story,uses misleading headline for political jab, water is wet
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News