FWIW Scalia's argument about the Exclusionary Rule is akin to the error made by Wall Street firms from 1984 onwards that led to the 2007/2008 financial crisis. Default rates on mortgages were so low, Wall Street concluded that it wasn't necessary to conduct due diligence on loans. Of course, the reason that default rates were so low was that they performed due diligence!
Our justice system is badly broken. Many rich defendants get away with almost anything, while indigent defendants are put to death even when courts know they are innocent. Perhaps we should assign lawyers by random lottery. Perhaps it should be possible to challenge judicial rulings based on serious errors in citations, making judges a little more careful in their reading. Perhaps we should restore as a principle the concept of equity--that rulings should not merely adhere to precedent or regulation, but that they should be genuinely just.
I don't know how the judicial system can be fixed, but today, seeing Donald Trump get one more tongue bath from a court--preferential treatment on bonding that no defendant would receive--it is no surprise to read Radley's article on how courts use junk science, incompetent medical examiners, and gross misapplication of sources to reach ridiculous conclusions.
Judges have addresses. You're neither an officer of the court(right?) nor a professional expert witness whose livelihood could be jeopardized if you offended judges. Write the judge and tell him he misinterpreted your piece and why.
Note: I am not your lawyer nor anyone else's. For legal advice, consult a qualified lawyer.
The pro-state actor bias of federal judges is something I didn't really fully appreciate until I read this study that Clark Neily did in 2021: https://www.cato.org/study/are-disproportionate-number-federal-judges-former-government-advocates#
FWIW Scalia's argument about the Exclusionary Rule is akin to the error made by Wall Street firms from 1984 onwards that led to the 2007/2008 financial crisis. Default rates on mortgages were so low, Wall Street concluded that it wasn't necessary to conduct due diligence on loans. Of course, the reason that default rates were so low was that they performed due diligence!
OOF.
Our justice system is badly broken. Many rich defendants get away with almost anything, while indigent defendants are put to death even when courts know they are innocent. Perhaps we should assign lawyers by random lottery. Perhaps it should be possible to challenge judicial rulings based on serious errors in citations, making judges a little more careful in their reading. Perhaps we should restore as a principle the concept of equity--that rulings should not merely adhere to precedent or regulation, but that they should be genuinely just.
I don't know how the judicial system can be fixed, but today, seeing Donald Trump get one more tongue bath from a court--preferential treatment on bonding that no defendant would receive--it is no surprise to read Radley's article on how courts use junk science, incompetent medical examiners, and gross misapplication of sources to reach ridiculous conclusions.
Judges have addresses. You're neither an officer of the court(right?) nor a professional expert witness whose livelihood could be jeopardized if you offended judges. Write the judge and tell him he misinterpreted your piece and why.
Note: I am not your lawyer nor anyone else's. For legal advice, consult a qualified lawyer.