If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Facing a 20-year mandatory minimum? Delay with pre-trial motions for 7 years, then complain the delay violated your rights. Fark: it worked   ( slate.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Mandatory sentencing, Tigano, Tigano's case, Agatha Christie mystery, mandatory minimums, Law, Appeal, Prison  
•       •       •

6933 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2018 at 6:35 PM (22 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-02-08 12:58:39 PM  
Eff you subtard, if you bothered to read the article, the Judge and Attorneys for both the Prosecution as well as the Defense were the ones doing all delaying. The Defendant was in their mind guilty as charged and facing a 20 year minimum, so they wantonly and willfully ignored his Constitutional right to a Speedy Trail. Because hey -- he's clearly guilty, so who cares?

Well, the Defendant care! He was the only one that wanted this to go to trial

FTFA: "Tigano, however, insisted on his constitutional right to a trial. After seven years, he finally got it "

This might come as a shock and a surprise to slack jawed cretins like subby, but your Attorney is not your employee, or your servant. Your Attorney will do what they god damned well please in giving you "adequate council and defense" So you can scream and holler till you are blue in the face that you "want to go to trial right farking now!", but unless your Attorney wants to set a trial date, that's just too effing bad. And even if they do try to set a trial date, if the Judge wont set the date because of their existing calendar or their mood, or the Prosecution motions to delay, then too farking bad

fark these a-hole submitters and their fake news bullshiat headlines that are essentially lies meant to undermine our legal system and our democracy so they can push their bullshiat agenda of ignorance and anarchy. And fark the mods that greenlight this shiat
 
2018-02-08 01:38:47 PM  
rcain:

Maybe you should save some of that venom for the Admins that keep greening these headlines.
 
2018-02-08 02:10:28 PM  
This was the guy who the courts delayed and his appointed attorney failed him. They repeatedly sent him for mental competency evaluations whenever he would demand his right to a speedy trial. This guy didn't game the system, he got farked over by it.

In fact, the court paperwork outlining why his conviction was thrown out is enlightening and lambastes the courts that did that to him. Headline is gratuitously misleading, to put it mildly.

/yea, yea, welcometofark.jpg
 
2018-02-08 04:54:52 PM  
Yeah subby, you're a farking moron. Try to read the shiat you submit.
That is why the attorneys and lower court judges in Tigano's case overlooked the speedy trial rule. They were not neglecting Tigano. They were, instead, repeatedly delaying his case-to the point of ordering three needless mental competency examinations-in the hope that Tigano would agree to a plea deal.

It's the farking courts and prosecutors who delayed this, not the guy who wanted his jury trial.

Ow! That was my feelings!: rcain:

Maybe you should save some of that venom for the Admins that keep greening these headlines.


It always makes me wonder how many good stories don't get posted so we can get mis-represented crap like this. They make it sound like 99% of your submission possibilities hinge on the headline, then we get this shiat where the headline doesn't match the farking story...
 
2018-02-08 05:12:29 PM  
Most alarmingly, harsh mandatory sentences pressure even innocent people to plead guilty to avoid long prison sentences.

I get the feeling that's the point.
 
2018-02-08 06:39:43 PM  

rcain: ...they wantonly and willfully ignored his Constitutional right to a Speedy Trail.


Um...no one's denied that unless they're on a date who's unwilling....
 
2018-02-08 06:43:32 PM  
I can't decide which is more stupid, the sub, or the Boobies.
 
2018-02-08 06:45:13 PM  
The worst part is, he's free again... to grow more plants. Shudder!
 
2018-02-08 06:45:53 PM  
I would be fine with mandatory minimums for certain crimes.   "Use of a gun or threat of a gun in the commission of a felony" should stick a 10 year mandatory minimum on whatever other crime you did.

This guy was looking at 20 for growing pot.  Fark that.
 
2018-02-08 06:46:51 PM  
Dude spent 6 years in jail waiting for his trial on charges of growing weed. 6 years is plenty of time for that. 20? Hooray tough on crime!

/we really need to start voting.
 
2018-02-08 06:49:42 PM  
I'd love a Christian like that Keebler Elf to explain plant prohibitions. It's basically claiming God made several mistakes while making the world.
 
2018-02-08 06:50:10 PM  
Rent Party:

I'm against mandatory minimums of jail time because I oppose the idea that incarceration is a valid form of punishment.

Jail's only supposed to hold people who might run until the trial and if guilty until the proper punishment can be applied or those who are a danger to others.

Having people live behind bars is just... barbaric insanity.
 
2018-02-08 06:50:37 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: rcain:

Maybe you should save some of that venom for the Admins that keep greening these headlines.


I'm game. fark those racist, clickbaiting sob's.
 
2018-02-08 06:52:23 PM  
Peter Tosh - Legalize It
Youtube ABc8ciT5QLs

eat shiat subby
 
2018-02-08 06:53:24 PM  

doglover: Rent Party:

I'm against mandatory minimums of jail time because I oppose the idea that incarceration is a valid form of punishment.

Jail's only supposed to hold people who might run until the trial and if guilty until the proper punishment can be applied or those who are a danger to others.

Having people live behind bars is just... barbaric insanity.


Fine.
You can live in the convicted, unreformed armed robber neighborhood.
 
2018-02-08 06:54:21 PM  

Devo: Dude spent 6 years in jail waiting for his trial on charges of growing weed. 6 years is plenty of time for that. 20? Hooray tough on crime!

/we really need to start voting.


Oh no. I have it on good authority from all the "liberals" here that we all have to vote Republican now because the Democrats don't believe in...something something.
 
2018-02-08 06:56:38 PM  
"1,400 marijuana plants", wow that's like 8.2 million Becky deaths.  Throw away the key.
 
2018-02-08 06:57:48 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: doglover: Rent Party:

I'm against mandatory minimums of jail time because I oppose the idea that incarceration is a valid form of punishment.

Jail's only supposed to hold people who might run until the trial and if guilty until the proper punishment can be applied or those who are a danger to others.

Having people live behind bars is just... barbaric insanity.

Fine.
You can live in the convicted, unreformed armed robber neighborhood.


Well, once the punishment is applied, that shouldn't be a problem.

Might be lonely...
 
2018-02-08 06:59:35 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: doglover: Rent Party:

I'm against mandatory minimums of jail time because I oppose the idea that incarceration is a valid form of punishment.

Jail's only supposed to hold people who might run until the trial and if guilty until the proper punishment can be applied or those who are a danger to others.

Having people live behind bars is just... barbaric insanity.

Fine.
You can live in the convicted, unreformed armed robber neighborhood.


Yeah that.  Separating violent people from the rest of society is an act of self preservation.
 
2018-02-08 07:01:53 PM  

Rent Party: demaL-demaL-yeH: doglover: Rent Party:

I'm against mandatory minimums of jail time because I oppose the idea that incarceration is a valid form of punishment.

Jail's only supposed to hold people who might run until the trial and if guilty until the proper punishment can be applied or those who are a danger to others.

Having people live behind bars is just... barbaric insanity.

Fine.
You can live in the convicted, unreformed armed robber neighborhood.

Yeah that.  Separating violent people from the rest of society is an act of self preservation.


Counterpoint: This guy was facing 20 years for a NON violent crime that shouldn't even be a crime.
 
2018-02-08 07:02:03 PM  

rcain: Eff you subtard, if you bothered to read the article, the Judge and Attorneys for both the Prosecution as well as the Defense were the ones doing all delaying. The Defendant was in their mind guilty as charged and facing a 20 year minimum, so they wantonly and willfully ignored his Constitutional right to a Speedy Trail. Because hey -- he's clearly guilty, so who cares?

Well, the Defendant care! He was the only one that wanted this to go to trial

FTFA: "Tigano, however, insisted on his constitutional right to a trial. After seven years, he finally got it "

This might come as a shock and a surprise to slack jawed cretins like subby, but your Attorney is not your employee, or your servant. Your Attorney will do what they god damned well please in giving you "adequate council and defense" So you can scream and holler till you are blue in the face that you "want to go to trial right farking now!", but unless your Attorney wants to set a trial date, that's just too effing bad. And even if they do try to set a trial date, if the Judge wont set the date because of their existing calendar or their mood, or the Prosecution motions to delay, then too farking bad

fark these a-hole submitters and their fake news bullshiat headlines that are essentially lies meant to undermine our legal system and our democracy so they can push their bullshiat agenda of ignorance and anarchy. And fark the mods that greenlight this shiat


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-08 07:04:10 PM  

Rent Party: I would be fine with mandatory minimums for certain crimes.   "Use of a gun or threat of a gun in the commission of a felony" should stick a 10 year mandatory minimum on whatever other crime you did.

This guy was looking at 20 for growing pot.  Fark that.


Mandatory minimums were created and promoted on the myth of lenient courts and revolving door prisons that was astroturfed by the private prison lobby.  Keep that in mind when you are proposing mandatory minimums, you are working to help for profit companies keep people locked up longer because it's good for profits.

No one, not one single person out there is better served with any mandatory minimum law.  We need to be working to remove them, not add more.  We have thousands of people serving life sentences for non violent crimes in the US.  It's insanity.
 
2018-02-08 07:05:47 PM  
I would gladly live in a community with people arrested for growing pot, mushrooms, and other herbal narcotics.

In fact, if it becomes legal for them to resume their previous behavior, I'd insist.
 
2018-02-08 07:07:51 PM  
 
2018-02-08 07:10:04 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Devo: Dude spent 6 years in jail waiting for his trial on charges of growing weed. 6 years is plenty of time for that. 20? Hooray tough on crime!

/we really need to start voting.

Oh no. I have it on good authority from all the "liberals" here that we all have to vote Republican now because the Democrats don't believe in...something something.


It was the President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno that began the priviatation of Federal prisons.
 
2018-02-08 07:10:19 PM  

doglover: I would gladly live in a community with people arrested for growing pot, mushrooms, and other herbal narcotics.

In fact, if it becomes legal for them to resume their previous behavior, I'd insist.


Yup. This right here.
 
2018-02-08 07:11:12 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Devo: Dude spent 6 years in jail waiting for his trial on charges of growing weed. 6 years is plenty of time for that. 20? Hooray tough on crime!

/we really need to start voting.

Oh no. I have it on good authority from all the "liberals" here that we all have to vote Republican now because the Democrats don't believe in...something something.


We certainly wouldn't want to hold Democrats responsible for getting into a "tough on crime" dick waving contest with the Republicans.

Heaven forbid we hold politicians on our team responsible for their actions.
 
2018-02-08 07:12:27 PM  

doglover: demaL-demaL-yeH: doglover: Rent Party:

I'm against mandatory minimums of jail time because I oppose the idea that incarceration is a valid form of punishment.

Jail's only supposed to hold people who might run until the trial and if guilty until the proper punishment can be applied or those who are a danger to others.

Having people live behind bars is just... barbaric insanity.

Fine.
You can live in the convicted, unreformed armed robber neighborhood.

Well, once the punishment is applied, that shouldn't be a problem.

Might be lonely...


Oh, my goodness. Delusions of competence and marksmanship under fire noted.
 
2018-02-08 07:12:50 PM  

rcain: Eff you subtard, if you bothered to read the article, the Judge and Attorneys for both the Prosecution as well as the Defense were the ones doing all delaying. The Defendant was in their mind guilty as charged and facing a 20 year minimum, so they wantonly and willfully ignored his Constitutional right to a Speedy Trail. Because hey -- he's clearly guilty, so who cares?

Well, the Defendant care! He was the only one that wanted this to go to trial

FTFA: "Tigano, however, insisted on his constitutional right to a trial. After seven years, he finally got it "

This might come as a shock and a surprise to slack jawed cretins like subby, but your Attorney is not your employee, or your servant. Your Attorney will do what they god damned well please in giving you "adequate council and defense" So you can scream and holler till you are blue in the face that you "want to go to trial right farking now!", but unless your Attorney wants to set a trial date, that's just too effing bad. And even if they do try to set a trial date, if the Judge wont set the date because of their existing calendar or their mood, or the Prosecution motions to delay, then too farking bad

fark these a-hole submitters and their fake news bullshiat headlines that are essentially lies meant to undermine our legal system and our democracy so they can push their bullshiat agenda of ignorance and anarchy. And fark the mods that greenlight this shiat


Our legal system? Our democracy? I don't think you get to call it "our" anything after you fled to wherever the hell you went. The guy was convicted, the seven years should be subtracted from his twenty year sentence. He shouldn't just go free.
 
2018-02-08 07:17:24 PM  

Abacus9: rcain: Eff you subtard, if you bothered to read the article, the Judge and Attorneys for both the Prosecution as well as the Defense were the ones doing all delaying. The Defendant was in their mind guilty as charged and facing a 20 year minimum, so they wantonly and willfully ignored his Constitutional right to a Speedy Trail. Because hey -- he's clearly guilty, so who cares?

Well, the Defendant care! He was the only one that wanted this to go to trial

FTFA: "Tigano, however, insisted on his constitutional right to a trial. After seven years, he finally got it "

This might come as a shock and a surprise to slack jawed cretins like subby, but your Attorney is not your employee, or your servant. Your Attorney will do what they god damned well please in giving you "adequate council and defense" So you can scream and holler till you are blue in the face that you "want to go to trial right farking now!", but unless your Attorney wants to set a trial date, that's just too effing bad. And even if they do try to set a trial date, if the Judge wont set the date because of their existing calendar or their mood, or the Prosecution motions to delay, then too farking bad

fark these a-hole submitters and their fake news bullshiat headlines that are essentially lies meant to undermine our legal system and our democracy so they can push their bullshiat agenda of ignorance and anarchy. And fark the mods that greenlight this shiat

Our legal system? Our democracy? I don't think you get to call it "our" anything after you fled to wherever the hell you went. The guy was convicted, the seven years should be subtracted from his twenty year sentence. He shouldn't just go free.


Let me introduce you to the Fourth through Eighth Amendments. I've stapled them to a baseball bat for your reading edification.
Stop there, and I'll bring them into focus for you.
 
2018-02-08 07:18:28 PM  
To play devil's advocate about mandatory minimum sentences. Without them the wealthy get off with nothing when found guilty (or they go to treatment) while the underclasses still do the time. Sic Brock Turner.
 
2018-02-08 07:19:25 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Abacus9: rcain: Eff you subtard, if you bothered to read the article, the Judge and Attorneys for both the Prosecution as well as the Defense were the ones doing all delaying. The Defendant was in their mind guilty as charged and facing a 20 year minimum, so they wantonly and willfully ignored his Constitutional right to a Speedy Trail. Because hey -- he's clearly guilty, so who cares?

Well, the Defendant care! He was the only one that wanted this to go to trial

FTFA: "Tigano, however, insisted on his constitutional right to a trial. After seven years, he finally got it "

This might come as a shock and a surprise to slack jawed cretins like subby, but your Attorney is not your employee, or your servant. Your Attorney will do what they god damned well please in giving you "adequate council and defense" So you can scream and holler till you are blue in the face that you "want to go to trial right farking now!", but unless your Attorney wants to set a trial date, that's just too effing bad. And even if they do try to set a trial date, if the Judge wont set the date because of their existing calendar or their mood, or the Prosecution motions to delay, then too farking bad

fark these a-hole submitters and their fake news bullshiat headlines that are essentially lies meant to undermine our legal system and our democracy so they can push their bullshiat agenda of ignorance and anarchy. And fark the mods that greenlight this shiat

Our legal system? Our democracy? I don't think you get to call it "our" anything after you fled to wherever the hell you went. The guy was convicted, the seven years should be subtracted from his twenty year sentence. He shouldn't just go free.

Let me introduce you to the Fourth through Eighth Amendments. I've stapled them to a baseball bat for your reading edification.
Stop there, and I'll bring them into focus for you.


I'm familiar with them. I stand by my statement.
 
2018-02-08 07:19:45 PM  
Abacus9:

Yes, he should.

By not granting him a speedy trial, the state should forfeit its right to prosecute.

His alleged crime is quickly becoming not a crime. He should thus be released.

He was nonviolent. Again, good reason to keep him out of jail if not just let him off with a warning.

On top of that, 7 years in jail without a trial? Not only should he be freed, but the prosecutors should probay be in jail awaiting their own trials on malfeasance charges.
 
2018-02-08 07:24:41 PM  

Abacus9: demaL-demaL-yeH: Abacus9: rcain: Eff you subtard, if you bothered to read the article, the Judge and Attorneys for both the Prosecution as well as the Defense were the ones doing all delaying. The Defendant was in their mind guilty as charged and facing a 20 year minimum, so they wantonly and willfully ignored his Constitutional right to a Speedy Trail. Because hey -- he's clearly guilty, so who cares?

Well, the Defendant care! He was the only one that wanted this to go to trial

FTFA: "Tigano, however, insisted on his constitutional right to a trial. After seven years, he finally got it "

This might come as a shock and a surprise to slack jawed cretins like subby, but your Attorney is not your employee, or your servant. Your Attorney will do what they god damned well please in giving you "adequate council and defense" So you can scream and holler till you are blue in the face that you "want to go to trial right farking now!", but unless your Attorney wants to set a trial date, that's just too effing bad. And even if they do try to set a trial date, if the Judge wont set the date because of their existing calendar or their mood, or the Prosecution motions to delay, then too farking bad

fark these a-hole submitters and their fake news bullshiat headlines that are essentially lies meant to undermine our legal system and our democracy so they can push their bullshiat agenda of ignorance and anarchy. And fark the mods that greenlight this shiat

Our legal system? Our democracy? I don't think you get to call it "our" anything after you fled to wherever the hell you went. The guy was convicted, the seven years should be subtracted from his twenty year sentence. He shouldn't just go free.

Let me introduce you to the Fourth through Eighth Amendments. I've stapled them to a baseball bat for your reading edification.
Stop there, and I'll bring them into focus for you.

I'm familiar with them. I stand by my statement.


Good. Hold still so you can review them carefully and see how mind-numbingly stupid and anti-Americanly wrong your position is.
The Founders are spinning in their graves even faster, thanks to you.
 
2018-02-08 07:24:45 PM  

wildcardjack: I'd love a Christian like that Keebler Elf to explain plant prohibitions. It's basically claiming God made several mistakes while making the world.


It's obviously a test, if you give in and smoke the Devil's lettuce then you failed and God's warriors will see to it that you are punished for it!
 
2018-02-08 07:28:11 PM  

Rent Party: I would be fine with mandatory minimums for certain crimes.   "Use of a gun or threat of a gun in the commission of a felony" should stick a 10 year mandatory minimum on whatever other crime you did.

This guy was looking at 20 for growing pot.  Fark that.


I hope to god you're never in a position to make that reality.  Sounds good in your head, but not in real life.
 
2018-02-08 07:29:26 PM  

Boo_Guy: wildcardjack: I'd love a Christian like that Keebler Elf to explain plant prohibitions. It's basically claiming God made several mistakes while making the world.

It's obviously a test, if you give in and smoke the Devil's lettuce then you failed and God's warriors will see to it that you are punished for it!


People smoke cilantro!?
 
2018-02-08 07:31:43 PM  
The real problem with "mandatory minimums" besides the insane harshness and the lack of judicial discretion and the inability to apply mitigating circumstances or good behavior or time served and the fact they encourage pleading out to "lesser included" charges to avoid the mandatory minimums on the actual charges and the fact that "mandatory minimums" are just a handy starting place to begin hanging enhancements all over the defendant...

Besides all that, the other problem is that there is no "mandatory maximum" to similarly rein in over-excited prosecutors. They get massive hardons about threatening suspects with the minimum FIFTEEN YEARS but there's no top end that the other side can use to flag them down with.
 
2018-02-08 07:32:25 PM  
He didn't "complain," submitter, he pointed out the extremely farking obvious.

We don't care about people charged with (but not convicted of) crimes, because we figure they're guilty, so anything that happens to them in the "justice" system is OK.

It's not.
 
2018-02-08 07:33:15 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: doglover: Rent Party:

I'm against mandatory minimums of jail time because I oppose the idea that incarceration is a valid form of punishment.

Jail's only supposed to hold people who might run until the trial and if guilty until the proper punishment can be applied or those who are a danger to others.

Having people live behind bars is just... barbaric insanity.

Fine.
You can live in the convicted, unreformed armed robber neighborhood.


I think his point was that jail doesn't "reform" anyone. You may already live in the the convicted unreformed armed robber neighborhood. How would you know?
 
2018-02-08 07:36:23 PM  

Scarlioni: To play devil's advocate about mandatory minimum sentences. Without them the wealthy get off with nothing when found guilty (or they go to treatment) while the underclasses still do the time. Sic Brock Turner.


Put another way, mandatory minimums encourage DAs who don't really want to put rich people in jail to charge them with crimes much less serious than the crimes they actually committed so they don't have to. Which isn't what happened in the Turner case (the "probation officials" recommended the light sentence and the judge agreed, while the prosecutors wanted him to get 6 years in prison), but I bet it's not at all uncommon. All you gotta do is be white and/or affluent.
 
2018-02-08 07:38:52 PM  

doglover: Abacus9:

By not granting him a speedy trial, the state should forfeit its right to prosecute.

No. I would agree if he were eventually acquitted, and I would agree that he would be entitled to a large settlement, but he was convicted. Take the seven years off the sentence and he still gets 20 years total. 

His alleged crime is quickly becoming not a crime. He should thus be released.
No. Laws don't work that way. They could, and have, released some under those circumstances, but aren't obligated to.

He was nonviolent. Again, good reason to keep him out of jail if not just let him off with a warning.
It's stupid that this is a crime to begin with, but charge him, don't charge him, I don't care. He still broke the law.

On top of that, 7 years in jail without a trial? Not only should he be freed, but the prosecutors should probay be in jail awaiting their own trials on malfeasance charges.
Again, sure, if he were acquitted. He wasn't.
 
2018-02-08 07:39:17 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Scarlioni: To play devil's advocate about mandatory minimum sentences. Without them the wealthy get off with nothing when found guilty (or they go to treatment) while the underclasses still do the time. Sic Brock Turner.

Put another way, mandatory minimums encourage DAs who don't really want to put rich people in jail to charge them with crimes much less serious than the crimes they actually committed so they don't have to. Which isn't what happened in the Turner case (the "probation officials" recommended the light sentence and the judge agreed, while the prosecutors wanted him to get 6 years in prison), but I bet it's not at all uncommon. All you gotta do is be white and/or affluent.


Not and/or,  only and.
 
2018-02-08 07:43:35 PM  
Abacus9:

Broken laws need no consideration.

King doglover the Bibulous has spoken.
 
2018-02-08 07:44:03 PM  

doglover: Abacus9:

Broken laws need no consideration.

King doglover the Bibulous has spoken.


As in laws that are flawed, not laws that are transgressed.
 
2018-02-08 07:48:39 PM  

doglover: Abacus9:

Broken laws need no consideration.

King doglover the Bibulous has spoken.


I agree in theory, but people in the legal profession would not, and it's kind of their discretion. Individual citizens don't get to decide which laws to follow. But I defer to Your Bibulocity (bibulousness?)
 
2018-02-08 07:51:26 PM  

Abacus9: doglover: Abacus9:

Broken laws need no consideration.

King doglover the Bibulous has spoken.

I agree in theory, but people in the legal profession would not, and it's kind of their discretion. Individual citizens don't get to decide which laws to follow. But I defer to Your Bibulocity (bibulousness?)


Bibulicousness?
Bibulometry?
Bibulence?
 
2018-02-08 08:01:18 PM  
mandatory minimums have jack all to do with the situation here.  More evidence of Slate's terrible legal reporting.
 
2018-02-08 08:03:55 PM  

rcain: This might come as a shock and a surprise to slack jawed cretins like subby, but your Attorney is not your employee, or your servant. Your Attorney will do what they god damned well please in giving you "adequate council and defense" So you can scream and holler till you are blue in the face that you "want to go to trial right farking now!", but unless your Attorney wants to set a trial date, that's just too effing bad.


This is not how the legal system works, farking hell. You think you can't tell your lawyer, AND THE JUDGE, you want different counsel?
 
2018-02-08 08:10:03 PM  
In Canada, the right to a speedy trial got defined last year at the supreme court level. Pretty much 18 months in provincial court, 30 in federal court. It's called the Jordan decision. 
And yes a lot of people got away with murder because of it. Whole thing forces courts to make everything work fast and quick. 

Yet the federal government still has a backlog of judge nominations to fill
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report