Friday, July 10, 2009

It is a long standing and necessary judicial principle that the primary finders of fact in a court case are the judges and members of the jury who actually observe the testimony of witnesses and their demeanor in the court room.

When cases are appealed, they are ALWAYS appealed on the basis of law, not fact. The courts defer to the judgment of those actually present to witness testimony. Appellate judges only rule on whether the lower courts applied the law correctly to the facts AS DETERMINED BY THE JURY IN THE INITIAL CASE.

This is an absolutely vital precept of law. Without it, there can be no respect for stare decisis, because every case must be decided entirely anew. Facts reweighed, witnesses reassessed.

Naturally, any judge nominated by any president can be expected to grasp this fundamental precept of jurisprudence.

Well, any president other than this one, that is.

Giminy Christmas!

Splash, out


That being said, Federal Courts of Appeal do have original equity juristiction in appeals cases however it is extremly rare for it to be used.
Well, I suppose they must have something along those lines, or Sotomayor could not have even made it an issue. Not being a lawyer, I'm not familiar with that term of art.

Nevertheless, if it's extremely rare for it to be used, I imagine it's extremely rare for a reason. I wonder what Sotomayor would say that reason is?

It's hard, I guess, for a judge to "make policy" without being able to appeal to equity, where common law or the statutes themselves are inconvenient.
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Site Meter

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!