[–] shawnfromnh69 ago
Whoever was in on that faked vote if they are on the bench should be tossed off and into jail for at least 20 years also if someone was not on the court but added it should also serve that jail time. This should be an automatic sentence with no excuses or minimized punishment.
[–] SearchVoatBot ago
This submission was linked from this v/BloodOfEurope submission by @theoldones.
Posted automatically (#25252) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
[–] [deleted] ago
[–] sane [S] 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago (edited ago)
Vote was ILLEGAL as Trumps SCOTUS just ruled 9-0.
The 9th district just attempted a 9-0 ILLEGAL ACTION of letting dead judges vote.
9-0 is about as clear cut illegal as you can get. Here is the Supreme Court Ruling from Trumps new SCOTUS :
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022519zor_8mjp.pdf#page=13
That's direct from SCOTUS Decided February 25, 2019
BTW : The irony of "9" votes , one being from a dead comatose undead lich, is not lost on me.
According to the article, the dead judge wrote the decision this vote is based on. So while this is very bad, this specific case should be rejudged, and some kind of law should exist to prevent dead peoples' opinions from counting, at least it doesn't look like the outcome in this specific case changed.
It's not a good precedent though and opens up the door for radical abuse. Imagine if a judge was 60% leaning towards siding with one side half-way through a trial and indicated as such. At what point could executing a judge to lock their opinion in place be an actually used strategy? This should be fucking terrifying for judges.
The same system used for jurors who die or fall ill during a trial (alternate jurors who are forced to show up and follow along) might be impractical for the highest courts, so they should fall back to what happens if the alternates aren't available either: declare a mistrial and try again.
[–] 1HepCat 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Yeah it's not super clear from the article but it seems like the following?:
1) The judge ruled and authored a document/'opinion' to explain the decision
2) The judge died
3) Some court clerk or something filed the opinion, thus making it official
4) The losing party appealed the ruling based on the judge's death prior to the filing.
5) SCOTUS (who has their own dead/dying justice) declared the filing invalid and ordered a retrial with a complete panel of living judges.
Seems like SCOTUS made the right call. I'm surprised this is the first time something like this has come up. I think the main concern is that the dead judge is no longer around to authenticate his ruling. E.g., in case the clerk altered the document (or fabricated the whole thing) before filing it.
Apart from that, the judge had ostensibly locked his ruling in. Apparently, none of his nine colleagues, including those who'd dissented, found the filed document suspicious enough to raise their own stink over it either. If I'm understanding the scenario correctly assassinations would only be effective if you could subsequently convince the public, etc. that the judge was both ready to rule and had indeed already rendered an unfiled verdict. Still not a great loop hole to leave lying around, though.
[–] Posso_Tutto ago
SCOTUS already ruled on this against. They clearly stated that a judge's vote doesn't count since he died prior to the ruling being issued, which is the point the judge's votes actually count
[–] sane [S] ago
Wrong
Already? On THIS? no. SCOTUS ruled just yesterday.
You did not read up about what you are posting.
9th circuit erroneously let a dead judge vote on April 9, 2018, who died 11 days earlier.
SUPREME COURT you refer to is the US , not state , supreme court (SCOTUS), and was not until yesterday.
Here is SCOTUS link to SCOTUS website posted yesterday :
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022519zor_8mjp.pdf#page=13
Read the last page :
"Because Judge Reinhardt was no longer a judge at the time when the en banc decision in this case was filed, the Ninth Circuit erred in counting him as a member of the
majority. That practice effectively allowed a deceased
judge to exercise the judicial power of the United States after his death. But federal judges are appointed for life, not for eternity."
read especially : "vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for theNinth Circuit"
So the judgement you claim was vacated by SCOTUS in the past is not true, and the 25th of feb SCOTUS overruled the 9th district.
You are correct that the vote counts on issuance time though, when all votes are in.