Reasons to not appoint Kagan to the supremes
2010-06-02 15:33:37.327564+00 by Dan Lyke 3 comments
2010-06-02 15:33:37.327564+00 by Dan Lyke 3 comments
[ related topics: Law Enforcement ]
comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment Re: made: 2010-06-02 16:55:32.778108+00 by: ebradway
There's an interesting line between professional ethics and liability. In principal, I'd have to say I agree with Kagan on this issue. The prosecutor was acting as an agent of the State. So the State should be held liable for hiring a scumbag. But I guess that opens a can of worms that's usually avoided: suing the State.
This seems to be a good example of why Kagan may not be qualified to serve on the Supreme Court due to her lack of real-world experience. Most Supreme Court cases deal with issues, like this, where the line between theory and practice is, at best, a blurred skid mark. The Supreme Court's role is to help clarify practice based on the theory embedded in the Constitution.
#Comment Re: made: 2010-06-02 17:45:49.159702+00 by: mvandewettering
The propaganda that I was taught about the United States is that above all else, we are a country of laws. To be a country of laws, we must have confidence that our legal system works fairly. There is nothing "fair" about a prosecutor soliciting and presenting false evidence against defendants in a criminal trial. Kagan suggests that there are already deterrents in place to prevent this kind of thing from happening, but clearly in the case THOSE DETERRENTS DIDN'T WORK. Two men were imprisoned for 25 years because prosecutors sought and presented evidence that they knew to be false at trial. The prosecutors suffered NOT AT ALL for their misdeeds in denying the freedom of two innocent men. I think they should be held accountable.
#Comment Re: made: 2010-06-02 19:05:46.657532+00 by: m
Such accountability must be criminal as well as civil.