shropshire 0 #1 February 23, 2007 WTF... The judge in the Anna What's her face court room farce broke down and wept whilst trying to read out his jundgment. Looked like he was trying out for a film rather than working as a professional... What an arse. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #2 February 23, 2007 QuoteWTF... The judge in the Anna What's her face court room farce broke down and wept whilst trying to read out his jundgment. Looked like he was trying out for a film rather than working as a professional... What an arse. _____________________________________ I'm wondering too... where the hell did he come from? In the end, he passed the buck to a long time family (lawyer) friend to decide! Talk about a circus. That dumb-ass judge should've kept driving a cab... he's no judge, that's for damned sure. Judge Judy, would've done far better and much quicker! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #3 February 23, 2007 QuoteCircuit Judge Larry Seidlin announced from his Ft. Lauderdale bench that, in his opinion "John Lennon is not the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby," thus making Lennon the only male to have lived in the past half century who has been definitely ruled out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #4 February 23, 2007 If, that judge doesn't get a T.V. offer... somebody is missin' the boat! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #5 February 23, 2007 I've always been very dubious about the good of cameras in the courtroom. Oh, I know all the arguments in favor of them, but I think in some instances, such as very sensational cases, they promote a circus atmosphere that runs directly counter to the interests of justice and the dignity of the courtroom. Just as it's impossible to truly "ignore" the fact that you're wearing a camera on a jump, it's equally impossible for many judges, lawyers and witnesses to "ignore" the fact that there's a camera running in the courtroom. When that happens, the camera becomes more than a mere witness; it becomes a participant. This is a prime example of that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #6 February 23, 2007 He also refered to Anna Nicole Smith's mother as "mama" and addressed her that way during the proceedings. How do you become a judge in the US? Isn't it disturbing a joke like this can sit in such an important role? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #7 February 23, 2007 I agree with Andy 100 percent. As far as whether this judge was acting, there's a possibility but I have seen bizarre behavior from judges before. There is the idea being put forth that cameras shouls be allowed in the Supreme Court. In testimony before Congress last week, Justice Anthony Kenneday was questioned about it. I think his quotes were dead on. From here: http://biz.yahoo.com/law/070215/c895fc06aab7b34426e2c64dc0f19725.html?.v=1 Quote Specter went on to urge Kennedy -- and through him, the full Court -- to see the wisdom of requiring cameras in the Court, telling the justice that "the court's functions ought to be better understood." But Specter also linked his campaign for cameras with his longstanding grievances about the Court's recent run of overturning acts of Congress. Specter singled out, as he often does, the Court's 2000 decision in United States v. Morrison, in which the Court struck down a part of the Violence Against Women Act. Allowing cameras to broadcast oral arguments, Specter suggested, might help the public comprehend rulings like Morrison. In his reply, Kennedy, with remarkable frankness, pushed back against Specter's point, telling him that linking the Morrison case with the need for cameras was "a non sequitur . ... It doesn't follow." Kennedy acknowledged that the Court "probably should do more in the way of teaching" about its workings but said camera access was not the way to do it. With fervor, Kennedy said oral arguments are "a way of using the attorney to have a conversation with ourselves and with the attorney" -- a dynamic that would be ruined by the presence of cameras. "We are judged by what we write," Kennedy said, not by questioning during oral argument. Cameras in the courtroom lead to more performance, and to other forms of soliloquy that should not be important to an impartial tribunal. Courts of law should not be courts of public opinion, which is what the cameras in the courtroom inevitably do. Senator Specter, in his statements about public comprehension of court ruling, I believe was merely trying to bring public feelings into matters instead of letting the law determine it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #8 February 23, 2007 yeap, Courtroom proceedings should be held In Camera for for them (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
