Judge Rules Convicted Drunk Driver, Previously-Deported Illegal Be Set Free, Allowed to Stay in U.S.

[jem]

How do you manage to almost always make wrong pronouncements about the legal system. This time you got closer... but you still lack understanding of the finer points.

I think you meant the "decision" stands not the decision not stands as "law".
I am not aware of horizontal stare decisis for trial courts are you? Other courts and people are not bound by this courts decisions if they have similar matters.

Trial courts do not make law they are the finders of facts. Then try to apply the law to the facts they find. (in general)

Then an appellate court may determines if the trial court transgressed the wide latitude they are given in applying the law or if they applied the wrong law or if the facts perhaps call for a new or better law.

A lower courts decisions is respected because whether its a judge or a jury we allow them to be the finder of fact.... not law.

A higher court than your personal opinion will be needed to overturn the Judges decision, which by definition, stands as the law unless and until the lower court is overturned by a higher court. Of course you can disagree. But the judges ruling stands superior to your own personal opinion. That's the way the u.S. legal system works. I encourage you to try and get the system changed if you are unhappy with it. You'll need help to do that. So get busy.

Of course the majority agree with the present system of judges having the final say. That's because they know that judges often have information that the public, who rely on the everyday media for information, are not privy too.

 

[piezoe]

How do you manage to almost always make wrong pronouncements about the legal system. This time you got closer... but you still lack understanding of the finer points.

I think you meant the "decision" stands not the decision not stands as "law".
I am not aware of horizontal stare decisis for trial courts are you? Other courts and people are not bound by this courts decisions if they have similar matters.

Trial courts do not make law they are the finders of facts. Then try to apply the law to the facts they find. (in general)

Then an appellate court may determines if the trial court transgressed the wide latitude they are given in applying the law or if they applied the wrong law or if the facts perhaps call for a new or better law.

A lower courts decisions is respected because whether its a judge or a jury we allow them to be the finder of fact.... not law.

The decision is not statutory law but rather de facto law, until overturned . The long practice of stare decisis by the higher courts makes that clear. The reason it acts as de facto law is that other courts faced with similar circumstances are quite likely to decide similarly based on the precedent set. This principle carries through to the highest Court. So when, for example, the Supreme Court rules that a penalty is or isn't a tax. They are making not statutory law, but defacto law.* And this is very much what the often heard criticism of the Court is about. When one hears " The Court should only interpret the Law and NOT make law," one is hearing an uniformed opinion. The Court would not be doing its Constitutional duty if it did not make de facto law. The House of course has the Constitutional power to prevent the court from making de facto law in specified instances. But I am unaware of any time that power has been exercised.

Another term for de facto law is "Precedent" . Perhaps you will be more comfortable with that terminology.
______________
*De facto law is of course different form statutory law. One major feature of difference is that de facto law, i.e., precedent, is limited by the surrounding context, which as a general rule is far narrower than the context of most statutory laws. So for example, when the Court rules a penalty is a "tax" it does not mean that penalties in general are taxes. It means that a penalty in the context of the case under consideration is a tax.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I used to have a lot of respect for them, even though I did not agree with their position on many issues.

Well, we all know now that they lost all moral ground they ever had.

So using that reasoning, Jesus' disciples should have refused to work with Paul, since he had persecuted them as a prominent Pharisee?

 

[wildchild]

A higher court than your personal opinion will be needed to overturn the Judges decision, which by definition, stands as the law unless and until the lower court is overturned by a higher court. Of course you can disagree. But the judges ruling stands superior to your own personal opinion. That's the way the u.S. legal system works. I encourage you to try and get the system changed if you are unhappy with it. You'll need help to do that. So get busy.

Of course the majority agree with the present system of judges having the final say. That's because they know that judges often have information that the public, who rely on the everyday media for information, are not privy too.

It depends what the ruling is and who is making the ruling.

Judges can also be impeached. Its time a movement is made to remove this clown.

 

[wildchild]

He won because of people like me. I have a consciousness and could not bring myself to vote for Clinton. Where his base, evangelicals, set all of their beliefs aside and showed up in droves.

I used to have a lot of respect for them, even though I did not agree with their position on many issues.

Well, we all know now that they lost all moral ground they ever had.

No they didn't.

 

[RedDuke]

So using that reasoning, Jesus' disciples should have refused to work with Paul, since he had persecuted them as a prominent Pharisee?

Wow, just wow. I never expected to see Jesus name mentioned in whataboutism. This truly can not be cured.

 

[jem]

so once again you should have quit instead of doubling down on your jurisprudential ignorance.

in general... and I can't think of any exceptions...

trial court results are not binding on other trial courts.
they don't make law or de facto law... they find facts and apply the law to those facts. You don't think juries make law do you? When a judge makes a decision in a case he is acting as a jury.

and trial courts do not make precedent for other courts.


Did you get to submit your off point crap for payment?

The decision is not statutory law but rather de facto law, until overturned . The long practice of stare decisis by the higher courts makes that clear. The reason it acts as de facto law is that other courts faced with similar circumstances are quite likely to decide similarly based on the precedent set. This principle carries through to the highest Court. So when, for example, the Supreme Court rules that a penalty is or isn't a tax. They are making not statutory law, but defacto law.* And this is very much what the often heard criticism of the Court is about. When one hears " The Court should only interpret the Law and NOT make law," one is hearing an uniformed opinion. The Court would not be doing its Constitutional duty if it did not make de facto law. The House of course has the Constitutional power to prevent the court from making de facto law in specified instances. But I am unaware of any time that power has been exercised.

Another term for de facto law is "Precedent" . Perhaps you will be more comfortable with that terminology.
______________
*De facto law is of course different form statutory law. One major feature of difference is that de facto law, i.e., precedent, is limited by the surrounding context, which as a general rule is far narrower than the context of most statutory laws. So for example, when the Court rules a penalty is a "tax" it does not mean that penalties in general are taxes. It means that a penalty in the context of the case under consideration is a tax.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

so once again you should have quit instead of doubling down on your jurisprudential ignorance.

in general... and I can't think of any exceptions...

trial court results are not binding on other trial courts.
they don't make law or de facto law... they find facts and apply the law to those facts. You don't think juries make law do you? When a judge makes a decision in a case he is acting as a jury.

and trial courts do not make precedent for other courts.


Did you get to submit your off point crap for payment?

I hate to bring any more complexities in to the discussion because Piezo is already over his head and not able to understand your point about the judge just being a finder of fact at that level- so when Piezo gets on a high and dumps everything he learned from a google search in regard to stare decisis, de facto law, blah, blah, it is all out of order.

But to add in another factor that would cause his lights to dim further, I dont think the judge was even an Article 3 regular district court judge. You know, the term "immigration judge' is a bit tricky. Your front line "immigration judges" are actually just employees of the Justice Department- administrative hearing officer/examiner types. From there they have appeal up to an Immigration Appeals Board or some name like that which is also just an executive branch tribunal, and from there appeal to an actual U.S. District Court. My understanding from reading a couple articles is that the judge was just a DOJ hearing officer "immigration judge" as they are called. Which would make your point even more forcefully- ie.the judge there definitely aint setting any legal precedent or making rulings on questions of law that other courts need to follow. He is a low level, assembly line fact finder. Admittedly important to those who appear before him/her but not binding on anyone other than the parties before him.

 

[piezoe]

trial court results are not binding on other trial courts.

Wherever did you get the idea that they were binding; certainly NOT from me! I never said that. In fact that is major difference between defacto law and statutory law. Where do you come up with this nonsense. Why don't you google the definition of de facto, then google de facto law. When courts rule the vast majority of the time similar future cases within similar contexts and circumstances are decided similarly, but there is nothing compelling them other than centuries of legal practice. Some lawyer you are!!!

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Wherever did you get the idea that they were binding; certainly NOT from me! I never said that. In fact that is major difference between defacto law and statutory law. Where do you come up with this nonsense. Why don't you google the definition of de facto, then google de facto law. When courts rule the vast majority of the time similar future cases within similar contexts and circumstances are decided similarly, but there is nothing compelling them other than centuries of legal practice. Some lawyer you are!!!

oh gawd. stop please. it is painful.