Judicial Process

Question: What does this fact suggest about the America judicial process? Most of the courts in the federal judiciary are appellate couts. What does this fact suggest about the American judicial process?

Answer: THEY WITH THE MONEY SCREW YOU LITTLE GUYS OVER

Question: Questions about interest groups in the judicial process? Interest groups become involved in the federal judicial process in all of the following ways EXCEPT by a. Running advertisements endorsing a judicial nominee b. Lobbying the Judiciary Committee about a judicial nominee c. Filing amicus curiae briefs d. Having their lawyers represent a plaintiff e. Filing a class action suit I have it down to A & B. I'm having trouble choosing between the two.

Answer: A.*

Question: Where can I find the judicial process/procedure of a civil and criminal case? Our teacher gave us some vocabulary words and told us we had to put them in the correct order of how a civil and criminal case would go. We had to made a flow chart out of the words. Some words would be used twice. I just can't find anywhere on the internet where it has the process that takes place in a court... I know it ends in a verdict, but thats all.. Here are the words: Arraignment Civil Defendant Liability Subpoena Injunction Opening STatement Complaint Acquittal Closing Argument Discrover PLea Bargain Tort Warrant Sentence Answer Appeal Criminal Grand Jury Verdct Venue Information Diliberation Summons Bail Damages Indictment Restraining Order Booking Trial and Preliminary Hearing NOt all the words have to be used, but I think most of them do, and I have to put each words into either a criminal or civil chart showing the order that a trial goes in....

Answer: http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/crimi…

Question: Why do GOP supporters encourage their reps to bypass the judicial process? Why do they always wish for their gods in DC to subvert or ignore our third branch of government? They claim to support the US Constitution yet whine everytime the Constitutionally appointed Judicial Branch tries to hold one of their own accountable or at least get to the truth of a matter. Why? From what little I've seen, Palin may be innocent of the charges. Why not allow the process to erode the majority of doubt?

Answer: You mean why do we encourage our reps to USE the judicial process, don't you, Chi? The last time I checked, the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th amendments were still in there. Edit: If the investigators deem you a suspect, you are entitled to the full body of protections for any accused. They cannot circumvent your rights by calling you something else. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and it never shifts to the accused. Xebo, if this occurs, first avail yourself of the 6th.

Question: How does the judicial process become a media circus when cameras are included in the courtroom? if cameras were allowed to be in a courtroom recording the case and then having it televised to the world.

Answer: The news would cut and paste select pieces of the proceedings and the public would not get a full and accurate picture of the criminal process. Furthermore I would think that while cases that are local might be of interest to the locality, nationalizing controversies between private individuals compromises their privacy.

Question: Isn't it time to acknowledge that it's beyond the capacity of the judicial process to deal with date-rape? and why do feminists insist that the courts provide the only solution to rape? http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/davi… At present, just one in 20 reports of rape results in a conviction. In date-rape cases, it's his word against hers. Often, juries will be in no position to determine who's lying. Campaigners sometimes speak as if any man accused of rape must necessarily be guilty. Yet jurors know that some women make false accusations, and that others misinterpret or misremember events or even deceive themselves about what's occurred. In the face of uncertainty, our judicial system requires acquittal. In light of this, isn't it about time we admit that the judicial process cannot deal with the he said she said nature of date-rape? Also from the article: When our houses are burgled, we're hardly more likely than rape victims to see the intruder end up behind bars. So what do we do? We fit locks to our doors and windows. We keep our valuables out of sight. Feminists object that even to mention such things constitutes a shift of blame from perpetrator to victim. Yet, when we fit window locks, does this make burglary our fault? The insistence of feminist activists that the courts must provide the only solution to rape is surely political. They want a demonstration that the state backs women against men. Second question: Is that true? Is the insistence of feminists on the courts providing the only solution to rape a political attempt at demonstrating that the state backs women over men? The solution is in my details. To be clear, I have included the solution offered in the article in my additional details. Perhaps you should also read the article I had linked to as well. Earlier on today feminists were complaining I provided no links.

Answer: I read this article earlier today. I couldn't believe it was in the GUARDIAN of all places. Such a bastion of politically correct thought making logical sense? Wonders never cease. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment put forth in the article. In the case where it's simply his word against hers, automatically assuming that the female never lies and that a conviction must be forced is disastrous. Of COURSE women lie about date rape; everyone lies. But the problem is that in any criminal case, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. If she can't prove that she was actually raped (or is unwilling to go through the necessary steps to collect evidence), then there can be no conviction. This is NOT a failing of the justice system. Rather, it's what it's in PLACE for: attempting to keep the innocent from being jailed. Sometimes I get the feeling that feminists would just as soon jail every man accused of rape on the off chance that one of them might actually have done it. After all, what are dozens of innocent lives weighed against one who is guilty? Serves 'em right for being men, I guess. </sarcasm>

Question: When i got home today i found a business card from the sheriffs office from judicial process section? What that means?

Answer: A BUSINESS CARD? That's ALL? No letter with an OFFICIAL SEAL ON IT, no INFORMATION? Whose name was on it? Where was it, stuck in your door? In your mailbox? I've never heard of such a thing! Be careful, it might be a setup for a SCAM. Do NOT call any phone number on the card. Look up the sheriff office address and phone no. in the phone book if you're curious to see if it's a match--but Do NOT give out any personal info., like your social security number, to ANYone over the phone! If the sheriffs office wants you for something, let their office send you a REAL letter on REAL letterhead with a REAL OFFICIAL SEAL on it.

Question: How do we keep non-violent offenders like Paris Hilton from being swept up in the judicial process? This just another classic example of the judicial system "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". Though I abhore all the media blitz surrounding this celebrity vagrant, it should bring to light the thousands of people sent to incarceration each year for offenses that don't warrant this type of punishment. Jails are dangerous and violent places that just produce more dangerous and violent people. Paris Hilton shouldn't be in jail unless she slashes someone's throat and that should be the example our courts should model.

Answer: So if she murdered a family of 4 while driving drunk would it then be okay for her to be in jail? Drunk driving is not insider trading. I definitely feel you on what should we do with people who commit crimes that don't or couldn't kill or physically injure other human beings but Paris didn't commit one of those crimes. Drunk Driving should not be taking lightly she was completely disregarding the law, she probably was drinking and driving a couple of times since she was arrested for the D.U.I.

Question: Why is Bush trying to protect telecom companies from the judicial process? Why does Bush wish to subvert the law?

Answer: The illegal wiretapping started in Feb 2001, 7months before 9/11, I'm so tired of hearing people say it was for national security, when it clearly was not. He's protecting them because if they immunize it, we will never know who authorized what, why and how many other laws were broken by Bush.

Question: Is this a good research topic for my judicial process paper? This is the research question I came up with (Is racial discrimination in the judicial system caused by the lack of diversity on the bench?)

Answer: First of all you need to prove that there is racial discrimination in the judicial system. Can't you write a paper that doesn't involve racism?

Question: Can someone explain the legal/judicial process of 'stripping citizenship' in America? What exactly does the 'stripping of citizenship' entail in America? If the person stripped of citizenship is not a dual citizen? How is it done? Who has the authority to do it? Why would this be done?

Answer: United States Code TITLE 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY CHAPTER 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY SUBCHAPTER III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION PART III - LOSS OF NATIONALITY U.S. Code as of: 01/03/05 Section 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions (a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality - (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or (2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or (3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or (4)(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or (5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or (6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or (7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction. (b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

Question: Please Help me understand? Why suspected terrorists are not allowed to enter the American Judicial process.? It seems to me that the Bill of Rights contained a statement about ALL of men being equal under God. (including women) Terrorists are not prisoners of war, they are not representatives of any single country. The language has been changed here, 10 years ago these individuals would have been criminals and treated as such. This distinction is important and I believe the language is already being included in some of the domestic policies your gov is pursing. Where the word terrorist is used. This issue may come back and bite you in the a**

Answer: Don't listen to the people who say the Constitution only applies to citizens. They don't know what they're talking about. Constitutional protections are extended to anyone inside the United States. Most terrorists are apprehended outside the USA, and that's the legal theory that's used to keep them out of our courts. Terrorists that have been apprehended in the US in the past have gone through the federal courts and the accused were extended all constitutional protections.

Question: Which statement about the judicial appointment process is false? a.)Few of the president's judicial nominees are confirmed by Congress. b.)Because federal judges serve lifetime terms, presidents have the power to shape the composition of the courts for many years. c.)The president usually seeks out the approval of senators before officially submitting a nominee to the whole Senate. d.)Presidents try to avoid difficult confirmation battles.

Answer: A ... but C and D are getting close to being false in recent history.

Question: If people understood the Legislative, judicial, executive process would they have more respect for the gov? I'm not a scholar on the subject, but i have a good understanding of all the processes of our government. If more people understood what goes into it, would they be happier or more disappointed? Do you think the majority of the people understand these processes? No rudeness or profanity!! Personaly, i have more respect for it.

Answer: I have respect for the original processes outlined in the Constitution. Government was meant to stay small and manageable. What has happened over a relatively short period of time in history is the usurpation of power from the states and the people. Federal government has taken on so much social policy and neglected national policy that it is mired in unnecessary law making. What really gets me angry is the direct disregard for our Constitution with the institution of reconciliation after bills pass the Senate or House...the reconciled bill is never voted on by the representative groups in the chambers before it goes to the President for signature. So there is no way for the People to audit the legislation before it becomes law. It's purposely subversive!

Question: How do race and gender affect the the judicial nomination process?

Answer: I think ideology plays a bigger role. Race and gender of course influence your point of view because you are the some total of your collective experiences and your reaction to the experiences. When we ask questions like this we tend to think in terms of minorities and females. However, for over 200 yrs in this nation the vast majority of judges have been selected in part because they look like the majority of people in power. I'm not saying that it is right or wrong, but I believe it is a factor. But back to my starting point, ideology plays a greater role.

Question: Why are Republicans politicizing the judicial confirmation process? Roberts got through with no opposition, while 3/4 of Republicans are opposing Sotomayor. What gives? Scalia got through with 90 votes, and he's a right wint extremist justice.

Answer: Why did nearly all Democrats oppose Robert Bork? Why did the American Bar Association unanimously give Bork it's highest qualification rating in 1982 when Bork was nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals but then a less-than-unanimous vote 5 years later when nominated to the Supreme Court? Was it because the ABA thought that Bork LOST some of his qualifications while serving on the Circuit Court, or was it because the ABA became politicized?

Question: How does the process of judicial review work? Please help me! Answer my other questions too! Thanks, I'm just trying to fill out a study guide for a major test, so please help!

Answer: hmmm..... i think you should google it to get an exact answer this is from wikipedia (if your teachers say don't use wikipedia, don't listen to them) Judicial review is the power of a court to review the actions of public sector bodies in terms of their constitutionality. In some jurisdictions it is also possible to review the constitutionality of the law itself.

Question: Why is a court in Texas trying to interfere in the Judicial process in England ? http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football…

Answer: The USA is always sticking their noses in other country's business.

Question: Judicial process, What is Voir Dire Process? After entering a plea of not guilty, a trial date was set and John was remanded back to the county jail. Prior to the trial date, name the specific steps of the judicial process. Be sure to include and discuss the voir dire process and any pre trial motions that may arise.

Answer: Watch "My Cousin Vinny".

Question: "Should the process of judicial appointment be altered to involve community consultation"? I should have noted that this is assuming that no degree of community consultation is present.

Answer: No. If you do, then you start involving more politics in the judicial system than what it has now. In theory, the justices are suppose to be above politics, and rule on the laws, not public opinion. In reality, though, we all know there are some politics involved in the judicial system, but let's not add any more to it.