Your conclusion would correctly be stated: You obviously don't understand how the American/English law works at all. We have the adversary system - justice is served when the two sides of a dispute present their best legal arguments against each other and a neutral finder of fact (a jury or, in a bench trial, the judge) and a neutral decider of law (the judge and appellate courts) decide whose arguments have the most merit. This system ensures that any party to a lawsuit puts his best foot forward - the only way to avoid losing is by fighting hard.
Another approach to justice is a more cooperative system - the two sides present everything they know to the neutral decision-maker, who makes the decision. Zealous advocacy is no longer the goal, but rather complete openness is. I wish I knew more about these systems.
I am a fan of the adversarial system. It works and it works well.
You're right. I really hope that Miers, who has no Supreme Court experience of any sort, will be able to just read the dang Constitution unlike the appointees of the Republican poster child Reagan.;)
As I've pointed out elsewhere in this story's comments, the lack of judicial experience is not a real concern (Rehnquist, among others, was appointed to the Supreme Court as the first robe he ever wore), but the lack of experience arguing before the Supreme Court is because it means she has less of a grasp on how it all works.
Thanks for the laugh about Wikipedia writing down your constitution for you. In US law, we have the American Law Institute writing down "restatements" of the law, which typically just restate the common law (although they sometimes try to innovate a bit by writing down what the law should be, those bastards) - such as the Restatement of Torts or the Restatement of Contracts. Wikipedia is becoming the Restatement of the English Constitution, eh?;)
Yes, she would have blown up some heads. But as to this being "the worst anyone can come up with," I think that the implicit Bush-hating around here is turning a story that was intended as a "Hey, this is neat - our next Supreme Court Justice may know a thing or two about technology!" thing into a big fat "Bush is bad, Microsoft is bad, Miers worked for both and must be bad." thing.
I really don't think that the story was intended as a negative portrayal of Miers, but rather as an interesting note. Stuff that matters, maybe not; but without a doubt this is news for nerds.
How is it "wrong"? What standard are you using to evaluate the procedure? It is absolutely correct, according to the U.S. Constitution. Who cares how other countries do it? Other countries simply do not have the same court system we have, and whatever they do doesn't make sense - but even if similarities exist to the point that their way would make sense here, it still doesn't matter because the Constitution says it doesn't matter.
Why is lack of judicial experience (or, for that matter, whatever measure you use to determine a person's "constitutional scholarship") a reason to criticize her? I can think of atleast a few prior examples of this working out.
There are plenty of valid criticisms of Miers, but that's no more one of them than is her work as an attorney for Microsoft.
Thousands of IT people around the world are losing their jobs because they don't know the difference between lose and loose, and because they have job titles like Software and Computer Nerd.
images.google.com - "spiked glove". That's all it took. So the part to worry about is that there are enough gloves like that for Google images to find. But thanks for your concern.;)
Dude, you are entirely out of touch (bad pun, down!)...the Homeland Security Act changed the type of gloves that are used for airpot cavity searches. The new gloves are not exactly rubber.
I watched the whole thing, with English subtitles. The acting sucked, but that's to be expected. The dialogue either really really sucked or was really badly translated, but I'm guessing both - there is no way anything good was in Swedish that translated to English so terribly. And the plot was downright stupid - not funny. See Uncyclopedia's page on how to be funny and not just stupid.
Welcome to law school (I'm a 2L and I loved CivPro). Discovery covers anything that might even reasonably lead to admissible evidence, so relevance arguments are generally irrelevant. I think I would send them a request for production of documents (Rule 34) about the logs. The only objection to the discovery I can think of right now is that it's attorney work product or prepared in anticipation of litigation, but an interrogatory about the existence and source of the evidence would at least get you close.
I wonder if other Slashdot lawyers/law-students enjoy the rules classes as much as I did.:)
I'm not sure if copyright actions are entitled to a jury trial on their own - many federal claims are not. But regardless of that, yes, you do have to at least allege facts sufficient to support your claim. And later there will be a motion for summary judgment that says, "even after discovery, you have no hope of winning, jackass," all before a jury would get involved.
People who think the jury trial is the devil don't realize how hard it is to get to a jury.
Is there such a thing as a "please tell me wtf you are talking about" motion?
Yes, there is. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure lay out the types of motions available. Rule 12 is the one we're dealing with here. I didn't RTFA, but a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is covered by Rule 12(b)(6). (Scroll down to "(b) How Presented" and find subparagraph (6).) Now, check out Rule 12(e), "Motion for More Definite Statement," which reads:
If a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the party may move for a more definite statement before interposing a responsive pleading. The motion shall point out the defects complained of and the details desired. If the motion is granted and the order of the court is not obeyed within 10 days after notice of the order or within such other time as the court may fix, the court may strike the pleading to which the motion was directed or make such order as it deems just.
Basically, "You have 10 days to tell us WTF you mean, or the case is dismissed."
I think this is a civil case - no indictment, no grand jury, no prosecutor, no conviction. And the Rules of Evidence don't require the RIAA to turn over any logs it may have. The Federal Rules of Procedure certainly may, but there are a lot more details to know before they'd be required to hand over their logs.
I think of it along these lines...you can know all the words and all the rules of grammar in the English language, but it takes something on top of that to be a good poet.
I think that getting to the third phase you listed as soon as possible is the key. But really, how much good does it do you to know the syntax of a language when you don't know to make that syntax accomplish anything? That's why people learn a language and drop it like this guy said he had done a few times - they never accomplish anything with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you, Findlaw. :) Here is a list of Supreme Court justices with no prior judicial experience.
Your conclusion would correctly be stated: You obviously don't understand how the American/English law works at all. We have the adversary system - justice is served when the two sides of a dispute present their best legal arguments against each other and a neutral finder of fact (a jury or, in a bench trial, the judge) and a neutral decider of law (the judge and appellate courts) decide whose arguments have the most merit. This system ensures that any party to a lawsuit puts his best foot forward - the only way to avoid losing is by fighting hard.
Another approach to justice is a more cooperative system - the two sides present everything they know to the neutral decision-maker, who makes the decision. Zealous advocacy is no longer the goal, but rather complete openness is. I wish I knew more about these systems.
I am a fan of the adversarial system. It works and it works well.
You're right. I really hope that Miers, who has no Supreme Court experience of any sort, will be able to just read the dang Constitution unlike the appointees of the Republican poster child Reagan. ;)
If you are afraid of a Bush loyalist on the Court, don't worry. Republican stealth nominations always bite them in the ass.
As I've pointed out elsewhere in this story's comments, the lack of judicial experience is not a real concern (Rehnquist, among others, was appointed to the Supreme Court as the first robe he ever wore), but the lack of experience arguing before the Supreme Court is because it means she has less of a grasp on how it all works.
Thanks for the laugh about Wikipedia writing down your constitution for you. In US law, we have the American Law Institute writing down "restatements" of the law, which typically just restate the common law (although they sometimes try to innovate a bit by writing down what the law should be, those bastards) - such as the Restatement of Torts or the Restatement of Contracts. Wikipedia is becoming the Restatement of the English Constitution, eh? ;)
Yes, she would have blown up some heads. But as to this being "the worst anyone can come up with," I think that the implicit Bush-hating around here is turning a story that was intended as a "Hey, this is neat - our next Supreme Court Justice may know a thing or two about technology!" thing into a big fat "Bush is bad, Microsoft is bad, Miers worked for both and must be bad." thing.
I really don't think that the story was intended as a negative portrayal of Miers, but rather as an interesting note. Stuff that matters, maybe not; but without a doubt this is news for nerds.
How is it "wrong"? What standard are you using to evaluate the procedure? It is absolutely correct, according to the U.S. Constitution. Who cares how other countries do it? Other countries simply do not have the same court system we have, and whatever they do doesn't make sense - but even if similarities exist to the point that their way would make sense here, it still doesn't matter because the Constitution says it doesn't matter.
Why is lack of judicial experience (or, for that matter, whatever measure you use to determine a person's "constitutional scholarship") a reason to criticize her? I can think of at least a few prior examples of this working out.
There are plenty of valid criticisms of Miers, but that's no more one of them than is her work as an attorney for Microsoft.
Thousands of IT people around the world are losing their jobs because they don't know the difference between lose and loose, and because they have job titles like Software and Computer Nerd.
</sarcasm>
images.google.com - "spiked glove". That's all it took. So the part to worry about is that there are enough gloves like that for Google images to find. But thanks for your concern. ;)
Dude, you are entirely out of touch (bad pun, down!)...the Homeland Security Act changed the type of gloves that are used for airpot cavity searches. The new gloves are not exactly rubber.
This post, if any ever has, deserves to be given the rare +5 Flamebait total moderation. :)
That's because some of the CSS renders quite poorly in Safari. :P
Whatever. The only good Scandinavians are Norwegians, and they were smart enough not to play a part in this crapfest.
I watched the whole thing, with English subtitles. The acting sucked, but that's to be expected. The dialogue either really really sucked or was really badly translated, but I'm guessing both - there is no way anything good was in Swedish that translated to English so terribly. And the plot was downright stupid - not funny. See Uncyclopedia's page on how to be funny and not just stupid.
Welcome to law school (I'm a 2L and I loved CivPro). Discovery covers anything that might even reasonably lead to admissible evidence, so relevance arguments are generally irrelevant. I think I would send them a request for production of documents (Rule 34) about the logs. The only objection to the discovery I can think of right now is that it's attorney work product or prepared in anticipation of litigation, but an interrogatory about the existence and source of the evidence would at least get you close.
:)
I wonder if other Slashdot lawyers/law-students enjoy the rules classes as much as I did.
The question wasn't whether a judge would actually grant the motion, just whether such a motion existed. :)
I'm not sure if copyright actions are entitled to a jury trial on their own - many federal claims are not. But regardless of that, yes, you do have to at least allege facts sufficient to support your claim. And later there will be a motion for summary judgment that says, "even after discovery, you have no hope of winning, jackass," all before a jury would get involved.
People who think the jury trial is the devil don't realize how hard it is to get to a jury.
Yes, there is. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure lay out the types of motions available. Rule 12 is the one we're dealing with here. I didn't RTFA, but a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is covered by Rule 12(b)(6). (Scroll down to "(b) How Presented" and find subparagraph (6).) Now, check out Rule 12(e), "Motion for More Definite Statement," which reads:
Basically, "You have 10 days to tell us WTF you mean, or the case is dismissed."
Just remember: The distinguishing feature of civil disobedience is that you get arrested.
I think this is a civil case - no indictment, no grand jury, no prosecutor, no conviction. And the Rules of Evidence don't require the RIAA to turn over any logs it may have. The Federal Rules of Procedure certainly may, but there are a lot more details to know before they'd be required to hand over their logs.
How about a little proof
Proof is for trials - simple allegations are for complaints, the document that a motion to dismiss goes up against.
I think of it along these lines...you can know all the words and all the rules of grammar in the English language, but it takes something on top of that to be a good poet.
I think that getting to the third phase you listed as soon as possible is the key. But really, how much good does it do you to know the syntax of a language when you don't know to make that syntax accomplish anything? That's why people learn a language and drop it like this guy said he had done a few times - they never accomplish anything with it.