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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (376592)	8/4/2010 10:30:57 PM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794016

Short answer from a novice. Judges have waaay too much power today. * * *

To: ManyMoose who wrote (376592)	8/5/2010 10:57:49 AM
From: mph	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794016

The answer is that the decision is not vested in one judge. You have the trial court judge, who makes the initial decision or presides over the trial and fact finding. On appeal, there is typically a 3 judge panel, where 2 of 3 must agree. In the federal system, one can petition for an en banc review. The losing party can then petition the state supreme court for hearing or the USSC, assuming that an appropriate federal question was raised. The first appeal is typically a matter of right. All I can say is that the judicial branch is designed with built in review mechanisms. As we have seen with Congress of late, allowing gang decision making on such purely partisan bases does not encourage all that much confidence in the legislative process.