I found 2 South Dakota supporters of J.A.I.L.
In a masterful rendition of "yeah, what he said" Jack Harriman of Salem reprinted the words of Fred A. Bostick of Sioux Falls in support of the Judicial Accountability Amendment.My first reaction when I saw this? What's their gripe with the legal system? And I didn't have to look hard at all to find the answer.
Fred A. Bostick of Sioux Falls had initiated an action while in state Prison for escape from the Minnehaha County Jail. In the meantime, he was paroled, and a very technical argument was made to the Supreme Court about what constitutes custody. Needless to say, he lost.
Jack Harriman of Salem apparently had a contract dispute with the new owners of Feterl Manufacturing. It went all the way to the State Supreme Court, and he lost.
I'm not going to comment as to whether or nor their claims were valid. The Supreme Court did them the credit of reviewing their cases, so there had to be issues involved in their cases that merited concern. And they chose to decide the matter of law against these gentlemen. It happens.But the bottom line that voters need to pay attention to - in neither case would the Judicial Accountability Act have changed things or provided a remedy.
Comments
Doesn't the SDSCt review every appealed case? So their cases didn't even necessarily "merit[] concern."
or did you miss that part?
This is exactly right. The judges did nothing wrong. If you take the time to calm down, (and yes, I understandhow unlikely that is) you've perfectly illustrated the point.
Try reading the short verion of Amendment E. As is clearly stated, unhappy litigants are apt to remain unhappy.
It's when judges do Illegal things...some more obvious than others, that they will be held accountable.
It's like passing laws because we might be visited by little green men from outerspace.
A few people have heard of them, but that doesn't make them real.
In either case (little green men or SD judges intentionally flaunting the law) we don't need legislation to protect ourselves.
What would have happened is that the disgruntled parties in these cases would have filed FOR FREE complaints before the Special Grand Jury. Doing so doesn't cost them a dime.
The JUDGES on the other hand would have had to hire lawyers, paid a filing fee and paid for a defense OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKET.
Even if the complaint before the Special Grand Jury was ultimately dismissed, the judges would STILL PERSONALLY be out the money it took to defend the complaint.
You J.A.I.L/Amendment E people want to ignore and hide that part, don't you?
"They merited enough of a concern to have been argued in front of the court. (as opposed to having been reviewed and rejected)
or did you miss that part?"
Apparently you don't know what "considered on briefs" means.
Or did *you* miss *that* part?
Pat, I never respond to anonymous dweebs. Those too afraid to show themselves but who like tossing cowardly, verbal bombs, aren't worthy of a response. In fact, my practice is not to read them as anonymous to me, means if they don't believe in themselves enough, why would any one believe their opinions?
To respond to your second comment though, (the first being too much of a special interest bent to be taken seriously), Appeals are an important part of the legal process.
Shoot in the worst cases even convicted killers are automatically granted an appellate attorney.
They did their appeal, they lost, next case and end of story.
Not complicated.
Anonymous posting is bad!
Unless of course, you are the one doing it, right?
Or did you forget that just last week Tim from A Progressive on the Prairie caught you posting here anonymously?
Here's a reminder.
http://dakotawarcollege.blogspot.com/2006/04/starting-new-weblog-and-its-hugs-and.html
At 1:23 PM, Tim said...
To anonymous one: Hi Bonnie. You need to try some attempted insults that don't appear in your e-mails to me if you really want to be "anonymous."