Cop-hating judge removed

Big Money

New member
Stop-and-frisk.jpg

She was nominated by Bill Clinton​



A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked a judge's ruling that found the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk policy was discriminatory and took the unusual step of removing her from the case, saying interviews she gave during the trial called her impartiality into question.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said the rulings by U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin will be stayed pending the outcome of an appeal by the city.

The judge ruled in August the city violated the Constitution in how it carried out its program of stopping and questioning people. The city appealed her findings and her remedial orders, including a decision to assign a monitor to help the police department change its policy and the training program associated with it.

The three-judge appeals panel, which heard arguments on the requested stay on Tuesday, noted that the case might be affected in a major way by next week's mayoral election.

he appeals court said the judge needed to be removed because she ran afoul of the code of conduct for U.S. judges in part by compromising the necessity for a judge to avoid the appearance of partiality. It noted she had given a series of media interviews and public statements responding to criticism of the court. In a footnote, it cited interviews with the New York Law Journal, The Associated Press and The New Yorker magazine.






http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-blocks-ruling-ny-police-stop-frisk-policy-20746200
 
Because I suspect that otherwise, Wanderingbarefoot wouldn't have stuck up for her...

Maybe the judge looked at these statistics and realized something's corrupt in the NYPD.

"Stop-and-frisk has been around for decades, but recorded stops increased dramatically under Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration to an all-time high in 2011 of 684,330, mostly of black and Hispanic men. A lawsuit was filed in 2004 by four minority men, who said they were targeted because of their races, and it became a class action case."

"To make a stop, police must have reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to occur or has occurred, a standard lower than the probable cause needed to justify an arrest. Only about 10 percent of the stops result in arrests or summonses, and weapons are found about 2 percent of the time."
 
Maybe she violated standards and got herself tossed and her ruling blocked.

Maybe the Center for Constitutional Rights has it right.

"The Center for Constitutional Rights, which represented the four men who sued, said it was dismayed that the appeals court delayed "the long-overdue process to remedy the NYPD's unconstitutional stop-and-frisk practices" and was shocked that it "cast aspersions" on the judge's professional conduct and reassigned the case."

Maybe cons should stop using this as their mantra, ya think?

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
 
The language involved was a bitch slap against judicial activism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/nyregion/court-blocks-stop-and-frisk-changes-for-new-york-police.html?_r=0

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, “ran afoul” of the judiciary’s code of conduct by compromising the “appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation.” The panel criticized how she had steered the lawsuit to her courtroom when it was filed nearly six years ago.

It's ironic that only a few weeks ago liberals were blabbering about "settled law." Well, this is settled law. The US Supreme Court settled it 50 years ago in Terry v. Ohio. The Supreme Court ruled that police can stop, question, and/or frisk someone based upon a "reasonable suspicion" (a lower standard of proof than probable cause) that the person is committing, had committed, or is about to commit a crime.

And that ruling came at a time, from a court, that was doing everything it possibly could to protect criminals in ways never envisioned by the Founders, in spite of all of the blather we constantly hear from pot-puffing libertarians.
 
Wow. A quote from Ben Franklin.

Only liberal nutbags and pot puffing libertarians would be dumb enough to take safety tips from a guy who flew a kite tied to a brass key in his hand during a lightning storm.
 
Wow. A quote from Ben Franklin. Only liberal nutbags and cop-hating libertarians would be dumb enough to take safety tips from a guy who flew a kite tied to a brass key in his hand during a lightning storm.

FTFY.

Or stupid enough to think he actually said that?

Wikipedia has a discussion on this which is helpful:

franklin: liberty/ security

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" is, I believe, the correct quote but it is often quoted as, "Who give up liberty for safety, deserve neither."

This expression seems to have mutated over time. Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations (1989) cites it as: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin, "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor", November 11, 1755; as cited in The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 6, p. 242, Leonard W. Labaree, ed. (1963)

It shows up four years later in a slightly different form, according to Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919):

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759); included in the work and displayed as the motto of the work, according to Rise of the Republic of the United States, p. 413, Richard Frothingham (1873)

Back to Respectfully Quoted, we find yet another version inscribed in a famous monument:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Stairwell plaque in the Statue of Liberty

And note what the anonymous Wikipedia editor does -- he inverts the quote in scorn of those invoking this quote all the time.

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2012/05/those-who-use-this-benjamin-franklin-quote-deserve-not-to-be-taken-seriously.html
 
The language involved was a bitch slap against judicial activism:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/n...d-frisk-changes-for-new-york-police.html?_r=0


It's ironic that only a few weeks ago liberals were blabbering about "settled law." Well, this is settled law. The US Supreme Court settled it 50 years ago in Terry v. Ohio. The Supreme Court ruled that police can stop, question, and/or frisk someone based upon a "reasonable suspicion" (a lower standard of proof than probable cause) that the person is committing, had committed, or is about to commit a crime.

And that ruling came at a time, from a court, that was doing everything it possibly could to protect criminals in ways never envisioned by the Founders, in spite of all of the blather we constantly hear from pot-puffing libertarians.

If the stop and frisk is directed overwhelmingly to minorities, and if the "reasonable suspicion" results in arrests for only about 10 percent of the stops, then it appears the cops need their antennae tuned up. Because it sure looks suspicious to me that 90% of those profiled were clean.
 
Back
Top