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.

Politics : The Supreme Court, All Right or All Wrong? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (1840)	10/19/2006 6:37:00 PM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3029

South Dakota's Amendment E would take care of that. But don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen. It's a wild idea. <g> What is Amendment E? Last summer and fall, some 46,800 South Dakotans signed the Judicial Accountability Amendment petition. You may have been one of them. If so, thank you for helping to get the Amendment on the November 2006 ballot as Amendment E! Basically what Amendment E will do is create a "citizen's oversight committee" with the sole purpose of hearing complaints against judges alleging judicial misconduct. Right now, there is no effective way to hold a judge accountable should he violate a person's rights in "his" courtroom. Amendment E will change that. A Judge SHOULD be accountable should he violate a person's rights, either on purpose or even by mistake. And in case you think that holding a judge accountable for mistakes is a bit harsh, please keep in mind that you and I are held accountable for our mistakes. (If you accidentally sideswipe someone's car, you will be held accountable!) By now most of you have heard or read something about Amendment E, the Judicial Accountability Amendment. Probably what you have heard was negative. Holding judges accountable when they violate a person's rights in court seems to bother some people, mainly judges, lawyers and other government connected people. Why? The SD State legislature, the State Bar, most attorneys, and the special interest lobbyists are all having fits over Amendment E. It seems that a lot of people working for or with government, from the Governor all the way down to the county commissions and even school boards have come out against Amendment E. People in government just don't seem to want to be held accountable! Well, we have heard their reasons for opposing judicial accountability, and we consider those reasons to be pretty lame. Accountability is nothing to fear. Accountability is the American Way. I hope that you agree that Judges should not be above the law and that judges should be held accountable when they violate a person's rights in court. It's just common sense to most of us! southdakotajudicialaccountability.com

To: sandintoes who wrote (1840)	10/19/2006 10:01:23 PM
From: sandintoes	Respond to of 3029

A surprise look at the judge who is accusing Cheney of obstructing justice...what a joke that is. Urbino . Born 1946 in New York, NY Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia Nominated by William J. Clinton on March 22, 1994, to a seat vacated by Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr.; Confirmed by the Senate on June 15, 1994, and received commission on June 16, 1994. Judge orders Cheney Visitor Logs Opened Oct 19 12:53 PM US/Eastern By MATT APUZZO Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON A federal judge has ordered the Bush administration to release information about who visited Vice President Dick Cheney's office and personal residence, an order that could spark a late election season debate over lobbyists' White House access. Washington Post asked for two years of White House visitor logs in June but the Secret Service refused to process the request. Government attorneys called it "a fishing expedition into the most sensitive details of the vice presidency." U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina ruled Wednesday that, by the end of next week, the Secret Service must produce the records or at least identity them and justify why they are being withheld.. The newspaper sought logs for anyone visiting Cheney, his legal counsel, chief spokesman and other top aides and advisers. The Secret Service had no comment on the ruling Thursday. In court documents, government attorneys said releasing the documents would infringe on Cheney's ability to seek advice. "This case is about protecting the effective functioning of the vice presidency under the Constitution," attorneys wrote. A lawsuit over similar records revealed last month that Republican activists Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed _ key figures in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal _ landed more than 100 meetings inside the Bush White House. The Post cited those records, which were released to the Democratic Party and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, as evidence that the documents should be released. breitbart.com