The American Lock them all Up! "Justice" System suffers defeat in SCOTUS

There is a lot of stakeholders in keeping the prisons full.

Hell now as there are private firms building and running prisons for states we had lobbies looking to made sure that we do not reduce the prison population.

I was watching a real crime show where DEA agents burning god know how must taxpayers money was chasing around pot dealers.

My thoughts at the time was god what a waste of resources.

I think the problem is more that there are too many small minded fundamentalist puritans who firmly believe that the hammer is the right tool for every job...the bigger the better.

Firefly is exhibit A.

Firefly may be exhibit A or B as we have no clue if her income might be taken from the river of money flowing over protecting poor women from us evil men.

Do you not find it strange that almost everyone here had given us all an idea where ours incomes had come from but for Firefly?

Hell she have so must information about your family finances that she used it to attacked you.

She is the same one who posts a couple thousand posts on rape but still will not tell us what her view of what the proper definition of rape is (will not define consent)....so no, I am not a bit surprised. She is all about winning the point, and her speaking honestly from the heart would gum up the works.

I have not made up my mind, she talks like an academic who has been too far removed from the people for too long for her brain to have any relevance to the rest of us, but her constant and outrageous attempts to support our bankrupt "justice" system indicates that she is deeply a part of it. Maybe a retired law school prof??

Her comments containing the attitude that IT THE LAW in the same tone as a right wing Christian would state IT GOD WILL seem to me to indicate she is not tied to the real life legal system nor is her language or terms used indicate to me a legal background.

Strange that she is the only one here that we need to guess at her background.

I read that as blind allegiance to the system, as a surety of the power of the criminal system over individuals, which I think most often comes from those who are so inside the system that they are lost.

It is a good result from the SC. And hopefully, it will lead to the revocation of some of our more idiotic drug laws - which are what filled up the jails to begin with.

Who's really pissed? The for-profit jail system.

Cycloptichorn

Why, if they can ramp up fast enough they can do a lot of new business in the next few years. I do note that SCOTUS was not willing to outlaw the sending of prisoners out of state, nor the privatization of jails, so one can not get too teary over SCOTUS doing the right thing here, as it is only partially right.

Well I had have a few lawyers as personal friends over the decades and they are all very frank over the faults of the legal system.

I had yet of run into a lawyer that give blind loyalty to the system to anywhere near the degree Firefly does.

Most of them will go on and on about the problems.

I had been teasing my wife that with the plans for private prisons in Michigan that we could get added income from placing a few jail cells in the basement of her home in the Detroit area.

The still fair minded sure, but it is also where zealots like Firefly are created I think. You might be right though. I once had a friend who carried on for months like Firefly in an outrageous position, and then he came clean that he was only taking a position for the sake of argument, that he really did not believe what he was saying fully.....maybe that is what we are dealing with here. Our friendship never got over this dishonesty however. Given all the time I have caught her in dishonesty I cant believe that Firefly would have a problem with practicing it in this way.

Great Idea! There is the best plan yet for putting Detroit to use, Have the few remaining citizens vacate and make it the New Australia!

Nope - it's the opposite. They get paid by the inmate and CA is about to release a third of the inmates they are getting paid for; their money stream is going to dry up quick. They also sell inmate labor super cheap, so that end will dry up somewhat as well. I'm sure they are pissed.



Yup. We already send prisoners to Texas and, that isn't going to end, but their prisons are full too.

Cycloptichorn

the way I read it is that the state must get inmate population in line with the capacity of the jails in California, and they can either do this by shipping prisoners out or by release. So if private companies will take 20,000 prisoners in the lext two years say then that is 20,000 that california will not have to release. THis would be boom times for the private jails so long as California is willing to sign contracts now to pay the freight over the next many years, and if the companies can get the jails built fast enough.

The main problem up till now (outside of lack of cash to build enough prisons) has been the prison guard unions attempting to keep the jobs unionized, so they have demanded limited outsourcing, but SCOTUS just in effect voided all the deals between California and the union to not outsource I think. California can now do what it promised earlier not to due on the grounds of this "emergency".

Every time the federal courts come out with a decision that is contrary to popular sentiment, there is a great outcry about "liberal judges," "conservative judges," “activist judges” - not to mention a general call to "reform" the courts, or do away with them altogether. Such criticisms are hardly justified. Indeed, it would be difficult to find a more staid group than those that make up the federal judiciary. (One does not get ahead by espousing radical ideas, one way or the other, about the law: witness the failed confirmation of the appointment of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.)

Given the role of the Supreme Court (and lower federal courts) in the system of checks and balances provided in the Constitution, an independent judiciary is essential, for it acts as a curb against the encroachment of government on individual rights and liberty. Under the constitutional provision for separation of powers, federal judges are not supposed to be subject to political influence in fulfilling the court's role. A federal judge, who serves with life tenure on good behavior, can wield great power; which is why it is important to appoint "qualified" persons and not just political ideologues to the federal bench. That is why federal judges are appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the Senate and not elected.

Our courts are the great levelers, for all men stand equal before the law. But while we are a nation of laws and not men, it is men who administer the laws and mete out justice. Most state judges are elected officials, and others appointed by executive authority; and there are few whose judgments are not influenced by politics, whether it be associated with getting reelected or avoiding impeachment from office. To make federal judges accountable in this way would turn the judiciary into courts of popular appeal, which is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.