No, that would like apply as well. But I only stuck murder in there because your original hypo was for murder, and I was already changing too much. If we made it wounding, though, we’d still have the doctrine of transferred intent to keep the crime as serious as it should be. So, George is wounded but doesn’t die.
Not review the evidence – review the conclusions of law. The evidence, the facts, they are stuck with. They may recite the facts; they don’t review them for correctness.
OK, let me get this straight. I understand that the evidence is the evidence. Does the appellate court review the evidence to decide for themselves whether Jack was or wasn’t planning to kill Steve or do they accept the lower court’s decision and review the legal decision as to whether or not that makes him guilty of Steve’s murder or both?
I’m sorry, bricker; I’m not trying to be obtuse, really. I just achieve obtuseness naturally.
OK, there’s already a case in court against this. I have two questions.
One I want to verify. if any lower court rules against this suit, does that shut it down forever, or can the plaintiff appeal?
Two, unfortunately, the recent (read, past eight years or even 12 years) have shown an increasing politiciization of the judiciary along with the polarization of the citizenry according to the Newsweek 7/7-7/14 double issue (by Stuart Taylor, Jr.), which article I can’t seem to find on the web. It’s on Page 46 of the magazine itself. You really can’t talk about liberal activist justices without also talking about conservative activist justices these days, of whom Scalia seems to be the most extreme example, followed closely by Thomas. So I’m really afraid of what will happen even if this goes up to the Supreme court. Because even if the justices who really want to retire do so under an Obama admin, we’re still no better off; we are simply holding the same position as we do now, where the fairly hard conservatives hold five seats. I don’t see any of the hardline right wingers eager to retire. We could get lucky and Scalia or Gonzales could have a sudden desire to ‘spend more time with his family’ (and this justice department thing might force that on Gonzales as alternative to impeachment - it certainly should), but let’s face it - supreme court justices are appointed for life, and with good reason generally speaking.
No. They accept that Jack was planning to kill Steve.
George is the one that died (or, in our latest modification, is injured). They review the legal decision that planning to kill Steve, actively trying to kill Steve, but actually killing or wounding George amounts to a particular crime.
Hi All,
I’m sorry for repeating myself, but let’s imagine FISA does not constrain the president’s wiretapping powers - Are they then completely unrestrained or does some other law pick up the slack?