Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (3802)	1/15/2003 8:23:11 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

From that first link: Furthermore, he acknowledged that the court was legislating from the bench, saying, "It could be considered legislating…We used our activism to get us out of a situation that we shouldn’t have been in….." Well, at least the judge understood what he was doing. You would think that would be enough for a reversal on breech of separation of powers, though. The 2nd link: A local attorney says state district Judge J. Manuel Bañales' order that his 19-year-old client can't have sex until he is married violates his client's civil rights and has asked for a state investigation. Attorney Gerald Rogen has filed a complaint with the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct questioning the constitutionality of the probation condition for Robert Torres, a registered sex offender. Torres was sentenced to five years' probation in 1999 after he plead guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl. According to court records, Torres' victim told authorities that she and Torres were boyfriend and girlfriend when they had sex two times in the front seat of Torres' car. At an April 18 hearing on a motion to revoke Torres' probation, Bañales issued the no-sex order after learning Torres had fathered a daughter with a 16-year-old girl and impregnated another 17-year-old girl while on probation. A month later, Bañales ordered 14 registered sex offenders to post signs in their yards and on their cars warning the public of their convictions. Now you have to admit, it's HARD not to agree with the judge on this one. Legislation or not. And for anyone other than Tim reading this, read that second link. It gets worse. The 3rd link: A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the federal death penalty is unconstitutional. The Department of Justice denounced the claim as another attempt to legislate from the bench. Yup. Sounds like it to me. The 4th link: Hmmm... I thought jury nullification, while unpopular with judges and lawyers, was in fact legal. There have been few, if any, cases where a juror has been actually prosecuted for their actions during deliberations. The most notable was during the trial of William Penn in 1670, where four jurors endured nine weeks of prison and torture for adhering to their "not guilty" votes. They ultimately won Penn's acquittal and nullified the law prohibiting the preaching of any religion except that of the Church of England. And that's why. That last link? What the hell, it's not the judge's money.