-- No word yet on who has interviews from the JNC. We do know that interviews will take place on November 30.
-- The NY Times covers Miami cyber-criminal Albert Gonzalez in a lengthy article. It's a fascinating piece about how Gonzalez fell back into a life of crime after cooperating with the feds. He explains that he would have been better off just serving his time instead of snitching in the first place.
-- Does anyone really think that we should still have judicial elections? This is ridiculous.
-- First opinions of the Term come out today. Check out ScotusBlog around 10am.
-- Judge Cooke won't be in trial this week. She's in Atlanta sitting as a visiting judge on the 11th Circuit.
UPDATE -- the Supreme Court decided one case, Abbott v. United States, No. 09-479, holding that Section 924(c) and does not preclude the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences for different counts of conviction.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Judicial elections? Two words: Peter Adrien. Were it not for judicial elections Miami Dade citizens would be stuck with one of the worst, least knowledgable, rudest, and even cruel individuals to ever wear a robe. And there would be nothing to check his behavior. He acted this way knowing he would get an opponent, so presumably he was trying to modify his worst excesses in the year before the election. Imagine what he would have been without any check on his behavior.
ReplyDeleteYes- we should still have judicial elections. Ask your buddy Milt Hirsch if he likes judicial elections. Or is he now going to become one of those Judges trying to blow up the bridge after he crossed it and want something ridiculous like merit retention.
Wasn't Adrien elected in the first place?
ReplyDeleteRump, you moron you. Adrien would NEVER have been picked by any governor of this state! You prove DM's point. I would rather have merit retention for all of them but have the governor, from an approved list of responsible JQC members, appoint for an initial four year term. That would leave it possible to oust a really bad judge but avoid the spectacle of future Adriens getting robed in the first place. Not that the other system doesn't have flaws either; only that they are less dangerous than the elected system.
ReplyDeletewhy not interview the whole list of applicants? There's only 16 of them. Which shows the decayed nature of our current ridiculous system. No offense to this list, because many of them are definitely merited, but current legal superstars do not apply. That is a real shame.
ReplyDeleteRumpole - EPIC FAIL!
ReplyDeleteJust about every member of the So. Dist. has sat at the 11th Cir. Why is the fact that Judge Cooke is so notable? I don't remember you pointing that out for the other judges. Also, your quote today in the Review endorsing jury nullification. You can't be serious. How would you like it if jurors acted according to their "conscience" and ignored the presumption of guilt or held the fact that a defendant didn't testify against him or her?
ReplyDelete"Presumption of guilt?"
ReplyDeleteRumpole isn't the brightest bulb in the shed. He doesn't seem to understand that elections are what led to Peter Adrien in the first place. The guy can pick a football team, but he sure can't think logically otherwise.
ReplyDelete