https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jud...ng-n880361

"California voters on Tuesday backed the recall of the judge who sentenced a former Stanford University swimmer to six months in jail for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman behind a campus dumpster — a sentence blasted by critics as far too lenient....

Prosecutors pushed for a six-year sentence in state prison, but Persky followed the county probation department recommendation of just six months in jail....

The recall campaign was spearheaded by Michele Dauber, a professor at Stanford Law School who says she is a family friend of the victim, known as Emily Doe...."

So, recalling judges because their sentences aren't popular, led by a friend of the family of the victim? This isn't just a case of replacing them when their term comes up. Its removing them during the term. Seems like a bad precedent.

It should be terrifying.

Lesson 1. It is not to your benefit as judge to follow sentencing suggestions from anyone other than the prosecutor. Doesn't matter what mitigation there is, nor does it matter what is just and appropriate. The person you offend by giving mercy, even if it is mercy suggested by an impartial party charged with making suggestions, is the mercy that can topple you from office. The safer play is to say the hell with judicial impartiality and the hell with your role of safeguarding the rights of the individual vs the power of the state. Max 'em out or at least give the government 100% of what it wants in sentencing.

Lesson 2. The public consumes information in twitter sized bites or at least facebook sized bites and will not listen to anything complicated. The public might listen to an entertaining rant but the public will ignore anything requiring thought and contemplation. If you can't defend your actions in 140 characters you lose.

Lesson 3. No one remains the sole nuclear arms nation forever. The good professor revealed the nuclear secret by showing that if you can build outrage over a ruling, you can get a judge removed. If I owned a business facing potentially very damaging tort claim or class action tort and it appears I've drawn a bad judge for my interests, you are nuts if you think I'm not sending a team of people to hoover up every ruling that judge has made in the hope of finding one that I can turn into a circus and get the public to recall the judge in an attempt to delay and draw a judge I feel safer in front of. The average citizen cannot afford to create an astroturf grassroots movement but there are companies that can easily find such an expense extremely affordable.

I think this is a terrifying trend, if it becomes a trend.

As a one-off, maybe not so much. This was a pretty outlandish ruling. And there is information to suggest that this guy had a habit of exceedingly lenient sentencing.

Had I been a voter in that jurisdiction, I would probably have voted to recall.

I think the will of the voting public is paramount.

(06-07-2018 05:24 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I think the will of the voting public is paramount.

The judiciary is the last line of protection for the rights of the minority.

If the majority in a state wants to drastically curtail gun ownership to a degree that it pretty clearly violates 2A is the will of the public paramount? The will of the public was not paramount when the 101st Airborne Division occupied my city.

(06-08-2018 09:27 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 05:24 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I think the will of the voting public is paramount.

The judiciary is the last line of protection for the rights of the minority.

If the majority in a state wants to drastically curtail gun ownership to a degree that it pretty clearly violates 2A is the will of the public paramount? The will of the public was not paramount when the 101st Airborne Division occupied my city.

If the voting public supports the elimination of the Second Amendment and the processes and procedures to amend the Constitution are met, then yes. Of course. How could it be any other way? Why would you want it any other way?

(06-08-2018 11:06 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:27 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 05:24 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I think the will of the voting public is paramount.

The judiciary is the last line of protection for the rights of the minority.

If the majority in a state wants to drastically curtail gun ownership to a degree that it pretty clearly violates 2A is the will of the public paramount? The will of the public was not paramount when the 101st Airborne Division occupied my city.

If the voting public supports the elimination of the Second Amendment and the processes and procedures to amend the Constitution are met, then yes. Of course. How could it be any other way? Why would you want it any other way?

If the public wants to eliminate the second amendment or repeal the ban on slavery or birthright citizenship or voting rights for women or voting rights based on age for people over 18 it would require:
1. 2/3rds vote of the House
2. 2/3rds vote of the Senate (1 and 2 can be in any order)
3. Ratification by 38 states
-OR-
1. Convention call by 34 states
2. Ratification of what the convention does by 38 states.

It wasn't that long ago that a court struck down an Illinois law that violated the protections of 2A. If the people of Illinois had the power to recall the judge for ruling against the law they might well have done it.

The Founders apparently feared the will of the voting public.
They created a method to elect presidents that they thought would be the people telling people they respected to go pick a president for them, the pledged elector wasn't a thing.
They kept the selection of judges out of the hands of the people and the recall of judges.
They kept the Senate chamber out of the hands of the direct vote of the citizens of the state.
The only direct selection they handed them was that of Representatives and even then they didn't want Representatives to represent more than 30,000 to 50,000 people.

(06-06-2018 03:27 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It should be terrifying.

Lesson 1. It is not to your benefit as judge to follow sentencing suggestions from anyone other than the prosecutor. Doesn't matter what mitigation there is, nor does it matter what is just and appropriate. The person you offend by giving mercy, even if it is mercy suggested by an impartial party charged with making suggestions, is the mercy that can topple you from office. The safer play is to say the hell with judicial impartiality and the hell with your role of safeguarding the rights of the individual vs the power of the state. Max 'em out or at least give the government 100% of what it wants in sentencing.

Lesson 2. The public consumes information in twitter sized bites or at least facebook sized bites and will not listen to anything complicated. The public might listen to an entertaining rant but the public will ignore anything requiring thought and contemplation. If you can't defend your actions in 140 characters you lose.

Lesson 3. No one remains the sole nuclear arms nation forever. The good professor revealed the nuclear secret by showing that if you can build outrage over a ruling, you can get a judge removed. If I owned a business facing potentially very damaging tort claim or class action tort and it appears I've drawn a bad judge for my interests, you are nuts if you think I'm not sending a team of people to hoover up every ruling that judge has made in the hope of finding one that I can turn into a circus and get the public to recall the judge in an attempt to delay and draw a judge I feel safer in front of. The average citizen cannot afford to create an astroturf grassroots movement but there are companies that can easily find such an expense extremely affordable.

And unless you are in that courtroom every day, you can't know all the facts. You don't see the facial expressions of the witnesses and defendants. You don't hear every word of testimony. You can't judge veracity from the written word. You don't hear any mitigating testimony in the penalty phase.