Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts

5.14.2011

The FBI Claims a Constitutional Right to Lie to the Courts


The FBI has claimed a right to lie to courts, not just withhold state secrets. This is amazingly brazen. It's also incredibly stupid, but I'll get to that in a second. The court's response:
The Government’s in camera submission raises a very disturbing issue. The Government previously provided false and misleading information to the Court. The Government represented to the Court in pleadings, declarations, and briefs that it had searched its databases and found only a limited number of documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request and that a significant amount of information within those documents was outside the scope of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request. The Government’s representations were then, and remain today, blatantly false. As the Government’s in camera submission makes clear, the Government located a significant number of documents that were responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request. Virtually all of the information within those documents is inside the scope of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request. The Government asserts that it had to mislead the Court regarding the Government’s response to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request to avoid compromising national security. The Government’s argument is untenable. The Government cannot, under any circumstance, affirmatively mislead the Court.

The United States Constitution entrusts the Judiciary with the power to determine compliance with the law. It is impossible for the Court to determine compliance with the law and to protect the public from Government misconduct if the Government misleads the Court. The Court simply cannot perform its constitutional function if the Government does not tell the truth....

10.20.2010

Why Judicial Elections Make No Sense

Judicial elections make no sense. I just saw a TV advertisement in Michigan called "Fair and Just." (The link is to an announcement of the ads - I couldn't find the video online.) The advertisement is for two judicial candidates for the Michigan Supreme Court and says the following things:
  1. The judges will apply the law faithfully.
  2. The judges will be TOUGH on crime and they're "law and order" judges.
  3. The judges will be "fair and just."
  4. Bad decisions can cost us jobs.
The first item is standard dogwhistle code for "These judges are Republicans/loyal conservatives," which apparently the ad is not allowed or not advised to say. Regarding the second and third items, in what universe do those two statements not contradict each other? If you know ahead of time that the judges will be tough on crime, how is it possible that they are either fair or just? Tough on crime inherently means worse for criminal defendants, and regardless of your opinion of criminal defendants, a preordained result is by its nature neither fair nor just. Comparing the first and third statements gives you the same absurd result. This just makes no sense. I'll discuss the fourth point shortly.