Hotdog Liberal Judge Is Conservative

He was active in founding the ACLU.  He was a New Deal progressive, and was appointed to the United States Supreme Court by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  His name is Felix Frankfurter and (as you can imagine) his name gave rise to political comedic comment (i.e., his followers were sometimes called "Felix's Happy Hot Dogs").  Now comes the amazing fact!  This progressive-liberal attorney was a strong and committed advocate of "Judicial Restraint."  He did not believe that the United States Supreme Court should become involved in resolving political issues by creative interpretation of the plain language of the United States Constitution.  He was reluctant to apply the federal Constitution to executive, legislative and judicial decisions of the individual states.  He was a frequent dissenter from the Supreme Court's "liberal" decisions of the late 50's and early 60's.  What every litigant wants is a judge who will decide his or her case on the law and the facts, rather than political views or personal beliefs.  Justice Frankfurter decided cases without needless relish!   John Greanias, Copyright 2013.

Can We All Get Along

The Academy Award nominated film 12 Angry Men is a dramatic portrayal of a jury trying to reach a unanimous verdict in a criminal trial.  It begins with eleven jurors voting "guilty" and one "holdout" juror.  During the deliberation process, the eleven jurors voting "guilty" are persuaded to change to "not guilty."  The storyline is good drama, but fiction.  During my 21 years as a trial court judge, I never had the experience of one juror persuading the others to change their opinions.  The fact, not the fiction, is that it is common in the American legal system for one juror to doggedly refuse to join with his or her fellow jurors to deliver a unanimous verdict and the trial ends where it began, without a verdict.  If a jury fails to reach a unanimous verdict, the judge must declare a mistrial and the case will start all over again with a new jury.  Frequently, when the case is presented to a subsequent jury, the jurors quickly come to a unanimous verdict.  Jurors who participate in a "hung jury" resulting from a "holdout" juror, are frustrated by the legal process.  They have given their time (perhaps reluctantly) to participate in a public service and feel that the public is not being well served by a judicial system that allows a single juror to control the outcome. Surprisingly, the judicial process in some states allows a verdict by a non-unanimous jury, and the United States Supreme Court has approved such convictions despite the lack of jury unanimity.  For a comprehensive examination of the legal and practical aspects of unanimous v. non-unanimous verdicts, read the well researched and concise law review article at the link below, written by Michael Glasser.    John Greanias, Copyright 2013.

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/243/glasfram.html

Marine Corps Major General Says War Is A Racket

He was twice awarded the Medal of Honor for war valor.  He was a Major General of the Marine Corps.  Consequently, his opinions regarding war, economics, politics and morality are worthy of solemn consideration.  In 1935, retired Major General Smedley Butler published a booklet setting forth his view that the real beneficiaries of war are economic profiteers, and their profits are purchased with the blood of soldiers, sailors and Marines. It is not a unique point of view, but it is certainly unusual for a career military officer to launch a campaign to discredit the role of warfare in society.  The booklet is written like a drill sergeant's address to new trainees, which makes it very refreshing.  The link below will take you to the booklet.  John Greanias, Copyright 2013.
http://www.warisaracket.com/