Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > June > 13 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USSpecial rules for special people
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
AJC reporter Bill Rankin has a nice breakdown on the issues surrounding House Speaker Glenn Richarson’s secret divorce filings.
Randy Kessler, an Atlanta divorce lawyer, said he has received requests from clients for “the Glenn Richardson divorce,” meaning getting the case sealed right after it is filed. “But then we have to explain to them that we just can’t do it,” he said….
“I don’t have a beef with him trying to keep his private life private,” (Atlanta attorney Shiel) Edlin said of the speaker. “The problem is that he seemed to do it in an unprecedented manner. I will be extremely interested to see if the courts grant him the power to seal it.”
It seems to me that the judge in the case — a buddy and former law partner of Richardson — has been doing some of that there “judicial activism,” making the law say what he wants it to say. But hey, what do I know? (Don’t answer that — although I know you guys won’t be able to resist.)
Services »
Comments
By Matthew
June 13, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this
Wow, this is cutting edge stuff. I’m surprised the national media hasn’t already jumped all over this story of monumental importance.
Judicial activism…you mean like the CA Supreme Court, or the majority in yesterday’s detainee decision?
By Copyleft
June 13, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this
Oh, I get it: You call it “activism” whenever you don’t like a court’s ruling!
Very clever.
By Me
June 13, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this
I knew an old man who said his teacher wrote on the board “of the people, by the people, for the people”. He said next thing I knew I was in Europe fighting Hitler and I’ve never heard another damn word about “of the people, by the people, and for the people”.
Its only “of the people, by the people, and for the people” if you have the connections, right Glenn?
By Matthew
June 13, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this
No, I call “activism” whenever a court:
A) Fails to use judicial restraint. You know, like creating a habeas right despite Kennedy admitting that the common law isn’t conclusive on the issue. Since the law doesn’t say, should we rule on procedural grounds or uphold the DC Circuit? Nah, we’ll make the law up as we go.
B) Decides what the law should be, and then searches desperately for said law. You know, like reading in a right for gays to marry with absolutely laughable constitutional support.
C) Fails to actually rule on a case. You know, like where the majority yesterday overturned the MCA and the DTA without describing how the new habeas right would be any different. Seems to me we should actually decide what was wrong with the congressionally prescribed method before making up a new one, but I guess I’m old school in that regard.
D)Rewrites precedent. Like yesterday where Kennedy completely revised the Eisentrager case with methods that could only be labeled as deceptive.
By Abomi Nation
June 13, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this
I think Matthew is exactly right.
We could pretty much stop seating “activist” judges if we just stop electing the Republican Presidents and Governors that put them on the bench.
Take the US Supreme Court for example. Seven of the nine “activist judges” were appointed by Republican Presidents.
Then you have the California Supreme Court. 6 of 7 of their “activist judges” were appointed by Republicans.
Stop electing Republicans. Problem solved. We can’t trust them.
By Pee'er Pressure
June 13, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this
One must review the reasons why anyone would want a sealed divorce. Why cant voters know that “irreconcilable differences” was the root cause?
Unless the two love birds couldn’t resist taking parting shots at each other in the divorce testimony.
Unless the amount of the money involved is shocking.
Unless there’s proof of perversion in the divorce.
It amazes me how these guys make up their own laws, and make them stick.
By Abomi Nation
June 13, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this
We need the records unsealed so we can judge the people involved, after all Jesus called divorce an abomination.
We really let the cat out of the bag when it comes to divorce. The next thing you know people are going to want to start marrying animals.
Allowing divorce is probably the result of some “activist judges.”
Divorce is a choice. Its also an abomination, its in the Bible.
By James
June 13, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this
And where in this state is there a judge who has the guts to make this right ? This prima donna must NOT get away with this. It makes a complete mockery of the judicial system.
By redneck southerner
June 14, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this
Nothing to do with this subject, but I just got my “Curious George” Obama ‘08 T-shirt….cutest shirt I have. The resemblance is stunning.
By Me
June 14, 2008 9:55 PM | Link to this
Aren’t court proceedings supposed to be a matter of public record? Everyone should be treated the same.