Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,772,368 times
Reputation: 3587
Advertisements
Again this is a TRUE statement of FACT. The courts do not make legislative policy but they do make LEGAL policy and the vast majority of LEGAL policy is made in the Court of Appeals.
Why? Simply because the district (lower) courts hear ALL cases that come before them and render verbal (simple) decisions based on what the judge or jury decide. They do NOT render written legal opinions.
The appeals courts also hear ALL cases that come before them but they DO issue written legal opinions. Often other appeals circuits use these opinions in their own decision making. Written legal opinions that are based on case law and precedent are what makes legal POLICY!
Now, one can argue that ultimate legal POLICY is made by the Supreme Court BUT the USSC does NOT hear all cases that are presented to it for review. It picks what cases it wishes to review. And it only reviews a tiny percentage of the cases presented to it from the appeals courts. That means that in the vast majority of cases, the appeals court decisions are what stands.
Again this is a TRUE statement of FACT. The courts do not make legislative policy but they do make LEGAL policy and the vast majority of LEGAL policy is made in the Court of Appeals.
Why? Simply because the district (lower) courts hear ALL cases that come before them and render verbal (simple) decisions based on what the judge or jury decide. They do NOT render written legal opinions.
The appeals courts also hear ALL cases that come before them but they DO issue written legal opinions. Often other appeals circuits use these opinions in their own decision making. Written legal opinions that are based on case law and precedent are what makes legal POLICY!
Now, one can argue that ultimate legal POLICY is made by the Supreme Court BUT the USSC does NOT hear all cases that are presented to it for review. It picks what cases it wishes to review. And it only reviews a tiny percentage of the cases presented to it from the appeals courts. That means that in the vast majority of cases, the appeals court decisions are what stands.
Exactly why liberals are so screwed up!!! I rest my case. All anyone has to do is to read your posts and see the blame everyone because I can't do as well as those who worked for whatever.
Again this is a TRUE statement of FACT. The courts do not make legislative policy but they do make LEGAL policy and the vast majority of LEGAL policy is made in the Court of Appeals.
Why? Simply because the district (lower) courts hear ALL cases that come before them and render verbal (simple) decisions based on what the judge or jury decide. They do NOT render written legal opinions.
The appeals courts also hear ALL cases that come before them but they DO issue written legal opinions. Often other appeals circuits use these opinions in their own decision making. Written legal opinions that are based on case law and precedent are what makes legal POLICY!
Now, one can argue that ultimate legal POLICY is made by the Supreme Court BUT the USSC does NOT hear all cases that are presented to it for review. It picks what cases it wishes to review. And it only reviews a tiny percentage of the cases presented to it from the appeals courts. That means that in the vast majority of cases, the appeals court decisions are what stands.
Thanks for posting.
Coincidentally, I just today received a Decision from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals that skirted all of the evidentiary facts and all precedent law. The judge in this case ordered the contracted Court Reporter, on a parallel case, to change the recorded transcript, and the judge and the Court Reporter refuse to provide me with the Original Transcript.
So, I would like to add to your post, that there are a lot of shenanigans that go on in the lower courts that also get picked up and used as precedent in future cases.
This judge told both parties (sternly) a couple of days before the trial that he was an activist judge. Neither side said anything.
Again this is a TRUE statement of FACT. The courts do not make legislative policy but they do make LEGAL policy and the vast majority of LEGAL policy is made in the Court of Appeals.
Why? Simply because the district (lower) courts hear ALL cases that come before them and render verbal (simple) decisions based on what the judge or jury decide. They do NOT render written legal opinions.
The appeals courts also hear ALL cases that come before them but they DO issue written legal opinions. Often other appeals circuits use these opinions in their own decision making. Written legal opinions that are based on case law and precedent are what makes legal POLICY!
Now, one can argue that ultimate legal POLICY is made by the Supreme Court BUT the USSC does NOT hear all cases that are presented to it for review. It picks what cases it wishes to review. And it only reviews a tiny percentage of the cases presented to it from the appeals courts. That means that in the vast majority of cases, the appeals court decisions are what stands.
District courts decide cases and issue written orders and opinions. But the decide individual cases and their opinions generally do not affect a large group of people. Other district courts are not obliged to follow opinions issued by a district court.
Once an appeals court issues an opinion on an issue, the opinion is considered precedent for the district courts in the circuit. That's how their opinions affect policy. Say, for example, that a circuit court has ruled that prison officials may not prohibit prisoners from practicing paganism as a religion. Prison officials will then change their policies to allow prisoners to practice paganism because they know if they don't, the prisoners will sue and the district court will follow circuit court precedent.
Exactly why liberals are so screwed up!!! I rest my case. All anyone has to do is to read your posts and see the blame everyone because I can't do as well as those who worked for whatever.
Do you believe in Miranda warnings, the exclusionary rule? Are those right, or left issues for you? Do you believe the police have a right to search your car without a warrant after you have been detained outside of it? Do you believe that you have a right to a phone call? Do you believe that an attorney should be appointed to you if you can't afford one?
Again this is a TRUE statement of FACT. The courts do not make legislative policy but they do make LEGAL policy and the vast majority of LEGAL policy is made in the Court of Appeals.
Why? Simply because the district (lower) courts hear ALL cases that come before them and render verbal (simple) decisions based on what the judge or jury decide. They do NOT render written legal opinions.
The appeals courts also hear ALL cases that come before them but they DO issue written legal opinions. Often other appeals circuits use these opinions in their own decision making. Written legal opinions that are based on case law and precedent are what makes legal POLICY!
Now, one can argue that ultimate legal POLICY is made by the Supreme Court BUT the USSC does NOT hear all cases that are presented to it for review. It picks what cases it wishes to review. And it only reviews a tiny percentage of the cases presented to it from the appeals courts. That means that in the vast majority of cases, the appeals court decisions are what stands.
Leagl policy is quite different from what she was talking about and she even sadi she should not say it when talking. She in fact implied that they have powwers given to the other two branches. Ist goping to be interesting in conformation hearings. Her fellow court members may take quite a different view of her and her beliefs.I am also sure it will come up in court hearings in cases because no toher supreme court judge agrees fro waht they have said in the past.
Up to now I think that most have avoided the fact that public policy is what we call laws. Only the legislative branch is to make laws and the executive gets to sign bills into law. There are a number of judges, mostly sitting on appellate benches who think they have the right to change laws to fit what they want and that is legislating and as illegal as all get out.
COURTS DO NOT LEGISLATE LEGALLY. THEY INTERPRET LAWS AND APPLY THEIR INTERPRETATIONS TO INDIVIDUAL CASES AS THEY COME UP.
The Constitution of the United States points out these things for those who really believe in the document.
Up to now I think that most have avoided the fact that public policy is what we call laws.
Would you mind posting legislation outlining the exclusionary rule, Miranda warnings, the guidelines for no-knock warrants, other bright-line rules, and balancing tests?
All the above are rules/policies which police, courts and other agencies both Federal, state and local must adhere to mandated by appellate and Supreme Court decisions. Court decision do not change or establish new laws they simply interpret those laws and guide their enforcement.
Just to bring it home to you.
The 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
As a strict constructionist would you care to point out the sentence in the 4th Amendment that lays out for law enforcement agencies what constitutes a reasonable search? Where does it define probable cause? If you are honest you will recognize that the Constitution is silent with regards to specificity. So, the Courts have had to set policy as to what constitutes a reasonable search and what standard is to be used in determining probable cause. Or, would you prefer law enforcement to just make up rules as they go?
Now some of the whackos here will try to argue that this is some kind of left interpretation. So be it, yet I doubt that if some government agency decided to knock on your door, better yet, force entry into your home searching for weapons? I dare say the first thing you and your attorney will be doing is searching for Supreme Court decisions/policies to demonstrate that such a search was both unreasonable and without probable cause. I wonder in such an event how much you will bemoan "activist judges."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
