Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Is it empathy when a cop doesn't stop you for going 5 miles per hour over the limit? It it empathy when a cop confiscates somebody's marijuana instead of busting him for it?

---

You call it empathy, I call it discretion.

Quote:

---

If they SHOULD, why shouldn't the Supreme Court have the same authority?

---

I would prefer that the Supreme Court of this land not make decisions clouded by emotion. I would rather they be clear-headed, rational, objective and logical in interpreting the constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I would prefer that the Supreme Court of this land not make decisions clouded by emotion. I would rather they be clear-headed, rational, objective and logical in interpreting the constitution.

---

Hello again, Steve:

Then you think the cop who uses discretion, isn't clear-headed, rational or objective in his approach to the law??

You guys don't know what the HELL you want.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Then you think the cop who uses discretion, isn't clear-headed, rational or objective in his approach to the law?????

You guys don't know what the HELL you want.

---

You apparently don't know what we want either, but you sure as heck try to tell everyone anyway. ;)

The cop using his discretion one on one generally holds much less consequence to the nation than SCOTUS does.

Hello again, Steve:

You, like tom, missed my point. You think empathy is cool for minor cases. You think cops should be FREE to use DISCRETION.

But, what you don't realize is that the cases the Supreme Court decides for the nation ARE minor cases. So, if it's OK for a cop on the beat to use his discretion, why do you think the Supreme Court shouldn't have that same luxury??

Like I said, you guys don't know what the HELL you want.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

But, what you don't realize is that the cases the Supreme Court decides for the nation ARE minor cases

---

You mean like Roe v. Wade?
Brown V. Board of Education?
Marbury v. Madison?
Gideon v. Wainwright?
Dred Scott v. Sandford?
United States v. Nixon?
Kelo v. City of New London?

Or how about one of your favorites which I addressed on the stealth regime thread, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission?

Yep, SCOTUS just addresses minor cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You mean like Roe v. Wade?
Brown V. Board of Education?
Marbury v. Madison?
Gideon v. Wainwright?
Dred Scott v. Sandford?
United States v. Nixon?
Kelo v. City of New London?

---

Hello again, Steve:

Let me see if I can explain. Every case you mentioned is ONE person against his government... They're ALL minor cases. One lady wants an abortion. A black child wants to go to a white school. A pot smoker thinks he has the right to get high. The issues are the same, and the citizens confrontation with the law is the same.

Now, when the Supreme Court decides a minor case, the decision applies to ALL cases. That's what makes them less than minor.

I say again, it's HIGHLY hypocritical of you to believe that a cop on the street may use his discretion/empathy, but when, and/or if, the case reaches the Supreme Court, the Justices should NOT be free to do the same...

You make NO sense.

excon

SCOTUS makes decisions that impact the whole country . Not a single individual .

Or do you think the Dred Scott case that overturned the Missouri compromise and pushed the country over the edge into civil war only affected Dred Scott and his owner ?

Plessy v Ferguson ushered in a half century of segregation .

Korematsu v. United States confirmed that the interning 110 thousand Japanese Americans ;not just Fred Korematsu was constitutional .
[I picked above cases because they are horrendous misinterpretations of the written language and intent of the constitution or amendments .]
None of the cases described above are the level of traffic tickets or someone smoking pot.

I disagree with disgression . I think the cop goes out on patrol every day with dept guidelines. The decision is being made by someone else. As I said ;I don't think it any coincidence that there are zero tollerance days(usually towards the end of the month. )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Now, when the Supreme Court decides a minor case, the decision applies to ALL cases. That's what makes them less than minor.

---

At least you figured that out.

Quote:

---

I say again, it's HIGHLY hypocritical of you to believe that a cop on the street may use his discretion/empathy, but when, and/or if, the case reaches the Supreme Court, the Justices should NOT be free to do the same...

---

Apparently you don't get that empathy is driven by 'feelings,' or maybe you do and you're just OK with the judge making decisions based on 'feelings.' Maybe the judge 'feels' that all pot smokers are useless lowlifes and deserve the harshest treatment, is that the judge you want to be in front of, or do you want one that will be clear-headed, rational and objective in carrying out his duties?

Btw tom, I don't disagree that there are dept guidelines, but after listening to the tales of my brother, who's been a cop almost as long as I can remember, discretion is definitely a part of the job.

Hello again:

I give up. You guys don't get it. I don't know why. It's really simple.

excon

Hello again,

Nahhh. I don't give up. This is SOOOOO simple, I'm going to POUND it in...

So, you believe the LOWEST guy in the chain of events, (the COP or his boss) should HAVE discretion, but EVERY single judge who reviews the case, should NOT...

No matter HOW you spin it, that IS what you're saying... And, it's exactly BACKWARDS. Makes NO sense to me... But, I'm used to that...

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

SCOTUS makes decisions that impact the whole country . Not a single individual

---

Hello again, tom:

Close - but NO cigar! The Supreme Court makes a decision on a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL that impacts the whole country.

He could be a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL who thinks he has the right to decide what he does with his own body. He could be a guy who thinks he has the right to drive fast. He could be a guy who thinks its OK to shoot a crook breaking into his neighbors house. He could be a guy who simply wants a lawyer (Giddeon v Wainwright). He could be a guy who wants to understand his rights (Miranda).

These are SINGLE INDIVIDUALS who don't have earth shattering cases at the COP level. They don't matter, UNLESS the Supreme Court takes up their cause. Then they become earth shattering...

Like I said, it really IS simple, and you have it exactly BACKWARDS.

excon

SCOTUS only gives standing to cases of national import . The justices grant certiorari to cases which are far-reaching, issues. Cert is also often granted when there is a conflict among the lower courts in interpreting a rule of law or a prior judicial decision. SCOTUS then decides on the correct interpretation of the law .

Sorry ,unless someone has a compelling constitutional issue with traffic laws they won't touch it .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Apparently you don't get that empathy is driven by 'feelings,' or maybe you do and you're just ok with the judge making decisions based on 'feelings.

---

Hello again, Steve:

I want my judge to be able to put himself in MY place. Which is EXACTLY what you think the COPS on the street should be able to DO. But, you don't think ANY of the judges who review the case should be able to.

You want to call it "feelings". You also want to call end of life counseling a death panel. You're wrong on both counts.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

SCOTUS only gives standing to cases of national import . The justices grant certiorari to cases which are far-reaching, issues.

Sorry ,unless someone has a compelling constitutional issue with traffic laws they won't touch it .

---

Hello again, tom:

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying... I think it's on purpose. Are you deflecting the argument, because you know if you engage me on the issue, you'll LOSE?

This is NOT difficult, and no, I ain't going to give it up.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

So, you believe the LOWEST guy in the chain of events, (the COP or his boss) should HAVE discretion, but EVERY single judge who reviews the case, should NOT....

---

Never said that, tom explained it well enough here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Most likely the cop is acting on dept. guidlines . They don't always want to get bogged down with the administrative time it takes to process what they consider minor violations.

---

Hello again, Steve:

^^^^ That's what tom said.

I understand that sometimes it's NOT the cop on the street, but it's his department... So?? It's distinction WITHOUT a difference!! SOMEBODY, at the COP level, has decided, for WHATEVER reason, NOT to arrest someone, even though it's CLEAR that the person broke the law. One of you says it's the cop who has discretion, and the other one says it's his department. I don't care. It makes NO difference... THAT is the point.

Then you go on to say, that NOBODY above the cop level should have the authority to DO THAT, even IF they have a equally compelling reason, like the one about relieving the clogged up courts.

That is the argument that makes NO SENSE. You're FINE with people at the COP level using discretion, but NOBODY, absolutely NOBODY above them may do the same.

Want to DEFLECT again?? I'll bet you do.

excon

I won't deflect . I do not approve of mandatory sentencing either .

But the decisions of SCOTUS are too important ,and affect too many people. Marbury (right or wrong... for what it's worth ;I think it was absolutely the worse power grab in our history) made SCOTUS the final arbiter.
If they don't interpret as the founders or the writers of the amendments intended then the Constitution is so much scrap paper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

^^^^ That's what tom said

---

"Strict interpretion as I understand the way you see it is enforcement to the letter of the law.I do not subscribe to that at all."

That's what tom said and I agree.

Quote:

---

That is the argument that makes NO SENSE. You're FINE with people at the COP level using discretion, but NOBODY, absolutely NOBODY above them may do the same.

---

You're putting words in my mouth again. You call it empathy, I call it fairness. I'm for fairness, I think it fair to allow the guy in this case to file his petition since his lawyer didn't do his job.