News-Record.com

I can't understand what Delay's problem is. Does he mind Kennedy doing research on the internet or does he mind that Kennedy is doing his own research instead of having his clerks do it? All federal judges and their clerks have unlimitted access to WestLaw and Lexis. Most people access it over the Internet these days instead of using the installed program. Lots of judges don't even order the books anymore. And most who do have them as wall decoration for the most part. Legal research is almost all done online these days. I just can't understand why Delay would have a problem with this. Which leads me back to maybe he thinks the clerks should be doing the research. And I am sure they are doing the bulk of it, but it is certainly a good sign that the justices do some of it. It is very cryptic.

I understand Delay's problem. Delay is sweating bullets over the claims that he has violated House Ethics Rules yet again, and is trying to stir-up enough ____ to keep the media looking at someone other than himself.

I think Delay's comments were true to his belief: the "Internets" is a dangerous place. All that porn and smut. Could be, of course, that he's nervous around people who can type. He's a "22 caliber mind in a 357 magnum world," (quote stolen from the West Wing). Soon, if there is intelligent design, everyone will know it. (Strains of "have you no decency?" abound...)

Ridiculous. Pure-T ignorance.

Judges can research anything they want. If they are researching FACTS about a case outside of the record before them, that COULD be a problem, but only if they fail to acknowledge that they are taking judicial notice of something. There are rules about what facts a judge can consider.

But Kennedy didn't do that, as far as I know. He did actual RESEARCH on the law and the context of that law. Amazing.

If anyone took any time to TRY to understand it and take the comments IN CONTEXT (what a concept for journalists) they would see what the real concern is.

It's not the medium that he's concerned about. It's the fact that research is done on a case outside of whether a case meets constitutional or legal merits or not.

Kennedy has said that his decision about the death penality for those under 18 was based on how the "international community" views this issue. That kind of information is not available in law journals or in various interpretations of the constitution.

I think what Delay is concerned about is that Supreme Court justices are not limiting themselves to what the law says. They are doing independent research of things that could unfortunately make them stray from a strict interpretation of what is consitutional or not.

The Internet was just the example.

Jim, with all due respect, you may think you know what DeLay is concerned about, but even in context, the article to which I linked says nothing of the sort. And I can find no indication anywhere else that DeLay said anything of the sort, let alone provided any sort of evidence. (Not that I am defending Kennedy's research on the "international community," although "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" certainly enjoys a long history in this country.)

Moreover, although I'm not a lawyer, I understand that there are a number of legal resources to be found on the Internet that are perfectly legitimate resources for judges, as "Q" pointed out above.

Lex, with respect, you are an incredibly frightening journalist.

If this is how you make your decisions about how to cover or approach a topic, we should all be worried.

You can't even THINK or CONCEIVE that there is a reasonable explanation for this. That just COULD NOT enter your brain, could it? (Of course, if it was someone like Clinton -- either one -- you would have no problem with it.)

Delay is NOT a dumb person. Delay is not stupid. Say everything you want about him, but his concern about the Internet research does stem from some nugget of concern about the runaway judges in this country.

Judges should make their decisions based on the constitutionality of the law. Period.

Why don't you take 5 minutes out of your day to enlighten yourself on how a LOT of the country thinks.

Read this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8745-2005Mar4.html

The way you are approaching this says a lot about how stories get covered in the news. It's frightening. You see something wrong with what he said based on YOUR POINT OF VIEW. I see nothing wrong with it based on MY POINT OF VIEW.

Guess who gets to write the story that appears in the paper about it? Not me.

COOL! I've always wanted to be frightening. Are we talking existential-type frightening, or what?

Jim, I considered exactly the possibility you suggest, which is why I went Googling for any evidence that there might have been any kind of context consistent with the scenario you describe. I found none. (That doesn't prove there is none, of course.)

Accordingly, I raised a question -- look again at my post, Jim; I didn't criticize, I raised a question -- about what DeLay said. I asked lawyers, people who actually know something about the subject, to explain to me (and both of my regular readers) what, if anything, was wrong with this. (I have no idea whether commenters who responded are lawyers; no one explicitly identified himself as one.)

I read the Will column to which you link. As I said in my earlier comment, I'm not defending Kennedy's deference to the "international community" in the context of that particular case. I can see reasonable arguments on either side of that issue. The Constitution, after all, bans "cruel and unusual" punishment but is silent as to what those two words mean in the context of criminal law.

One -- not the only one, but one -- reasonable interpretation is that if most other civilized countries don't do it, maybe we shouldn't either. I don't think that's a compelling argument; I have covered more than one case involving a juvenile killer I wish could have been executed. But I also find no constitutional crisis in the fact that Kennedy disagrees on this point. Am I missing something?

Ah. So your question about legal advice was PURELY a very innocent question about whether it was legal or not?

C'mon Lex. I know you better than you think... You don't ask pure questions. You ask leading questions that you already know the answer to to try to make a point.

Your point is made, but I've been able to make mine also (to the 4 people who read this thing).

Yeah, Jim, it was an honest question. The fact that I addressed it TO LAWYERS might have been a hint.

So let's see. So far you have:

1) Incorrectly implied that I deliberately overlooked context contained in the article I linked.

2) Implied that I agreed with Justice Kennedy when I explicitly said otherwise both w/r/t deference to "the international community" and execution of minors when I explicitly disagreed with him on each.

3) Refused to acknowledge that I did, in fact, attempt to research exactly the point you raised with respect to the context of DeLay's comments.

4) Suggested that my question was dishonest when I specifically addressed it TO LAWYERS. If I were simply posing a rhetorical question in the manner you describe, for the motive you suggest or for any other, why would I have addressed it TO LAWYERS?

5) Impugned my work and character in a public forum.

But, hey, I get paid to have conversations like this here, so if you've got anything to add, feel free.

You're right Lex. You're always right.

You win.

When I grow up, I want to be JUST like you.

Jim, I'm sorry you feel that way, and your comments and constructive criticism are always welcome. But when you attack me personally, particularly when you impugn my professional ethics in a public forum -- without basis, in my view -- I'm gonna push back hard. Life serves up a lot of unappetizing meals, but that is one dish I do NOT have to eat.

You're right in this case Lex. It's hard to admit, but you are.

I initially felt that your questioning of the legality was not a true quest for the truth.

The half-joking "is there a lawyer in the house" title and you're tendancy for wise-cracking/snarky comments made me think it was a veiled (or not so veiled) commentary disguised as a question about the issue.

The problem with all written forms of communication is that rhetorical questions and "jokes" can be misinterpreted. In this case, I interpreted a straight question for a snide comment.

I think the way others jumped in this thread -- reading your post as a basis of support for their point of view might have also slanted my view of what you meant (which is obviously not something you can control.)

Ok, i'm not a lawyer or a loyal reader but i am interested in the answer to the original question pose, particularly if answered by a knowledgable lawyer. So I missed it; was there a lawyer in the house?