nobody gets "speedy" trials anyway - why is this suddenly an issue?

I'm with intelgurl. My trial was postponed over 6 months in an ongoing waste of time. No one gets speedy trials, jury selection is a pain in the ass.

If you ever go on parole/probation you will see that a state can remove your constitutional rights for a certain period of time.

they can suspend your rights if your on parol or probation or if your a felon....thats not new....but they actually announced that they are suspending the constitutional right to a speedy trial.It is law that you have to be put in front of a judge with in three days of your arrest...thus they are saying never mind about your rights..we have other buisness to attend to.Im not saying that people get speedy trials but they actually lifted the right to everyone temporarily..hence...whats next if they can do this?

They suspended my right against unreasonable search and seisure and my right to freedom of assembly (cant think of others right now) on a double misdemeanor for a year.

I see what you're saying now though. Let this be a lesson to others like me, READ THE LINK BEFORE YOU POST.

I don't live or work in Florida, so I can't say that I can personally identify with the problem they are trying to fix. However, I do work in downtown nyc, walking distance from the courts there, and the fact is when there are protests of that magnitude going on, it's very difficult to keep things in order.

Of course I do agree with protecting the right to a speedy trial, but what about the right to a trial without hazardous disruptions and a trial in a safe environment. I'm sure some of you remember in the not too distant past the violent protests regarding the same topic. If I worked in a building near where these protests are taking place, I'd be quite tempted to call in sick. As would many people.

Read the article that sircyco posted but read it carefully.

A state constitutional law professor said Anstead's decision ``makes sense'' because Miami officials are fairly certain that they will be ``inundated'' with protesters who could disrupt court operations.

.

Disrupt court operations. It's not because "they have other business to attend to". This is something causing genuine concern due to past documented violent history.

Tragically the mouthpiece at the ACLU said the most disgusting thing I have heard in my life.

But a lawyer representing the American Civil Liberties Union said it was premature for such a decision.

``Let's say nothing does happen next week. Then you have people whose speedy trial rights were impacted'' for no reason, John De Leon said.

According to this heartless idiot, we have to hope and pray that there IS violent rioting. Because according to this man, taking preventative measures is STUPID unless something 100% happens. "Don't give your kids the hepatitis vaccine!! If you give it to them and they go through life and never encounter it, you've wasted your time! You better hope they encounter hepatitis or else you were wrong for giving them the shot.

This is tragically backwards. You know what Mr. De Leon, I personally hope there are no violent protests and nothing happens and everyone is happy that things went well. Speedy trial is important, but so is the safety of the people involved in the justice system. If it requires a tragedy to make people understand this, than i think the so-called protectors of constitutional rights have things all wrong. One of the essential rights we learn about is "Life", how about we protect those, and then worry about three days or ten days.

Djarums, you are a really smart person. I didnt see anything wrong with what De Leon said until you pointed it out with no room for counter-argument. Good job buddy, you just converted me and my ideas about this topic.

Well, we are talking about the same state (my state) that just recently, the Governor himself passed legislation to reverse the right to die decision made by a husband for his spouse who's been in a coma for 13 years....

Regardless of how you feel about the case, the act of this legislation is entirely unconstitutional, and they know it. However, it will take time to declare it as such, and they know that too, as they are only buying time...

Im not saying i dont understand why they are doing this...its just that i didnt know it was so easy to suspend constitutional rights for any reason.my point is that if they can do this then they can probably suspend your freedom of speach,right to bear arms,ect,ect, if they deem it resonable. i am against anything that threatens my constitutional rights for any reason what so ever...period. there is no argument that can sway me from thinking suspending constitutional rights is ok..ever

[Edited on 11-17-2003 by sirCyco]

um...wow..cant believe they can do this..whats next?

BB! BB! BB! BB! BB! BB!

Democracy will only sustain itself in the midst of technology for so long.

Did I make a mistake ?...




[Edited on 17-11-2003 by smirkley]

I cant believe people are acting like this is no big deal..i dont care about the speedy trial part in terms of quickness.....im talking about the public announcment of suspending constitutional rights...it is still a right and if they see nobody caring then they may try to push the limits by taking our guns and telling us to keep our mouths shut.

Well, Making an official announcement that they are not going to be able to guarantee speedy trials sounds to me more like a political ploy rather than a new world order conspiracy.
If it were a dark conspiracy they wouldn't be telling you and you wouldn't notice anyway because no one gets speedy trials to begin with.
However if someone is trying to prove a point or screw around for more money allocations then I can certainly see a high profile statement on unconstitutional policy.

This has patriot act agenda writtin all over it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A state constitutional law professor said Anstead's decision ``makes sense'' because Miami officials are fairly certain that they will be ``inundated'' with protesters who could disrupt court operations..

how long are the protests supposed to be?couldnt they just cancel court for 1 day? and look it says "A state constitutional law professor said Anstead's decision ``makes sense''. It does not even have a name as to who this constitutional law professor is.

Sircyco, you're right and it definitely is worded very ambiguously... however the next statement made is also by the same guy.

``They've really taken the bull by the horns,'' said Bob Jarvis of Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale.

I'm guessing (and i have to guess because they didn't write it well) that both quotes are attributed to Professor Jarvis of Nova Southeastern U.

here are some other quotes by this guy jarvis...

"I think we have certainly made ourselves less free," said Nova's Jarvis. "The question that remains is whether we've made ourselves more safe."

"In a sense I feel for the Bush administration because people want it both ways," said Robert Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University. "On the one hand, they want to be safe, but on the other hand they don't want to give up civil liberties."

this guy sure does not sound much like he cares about our civil liberties

A state constitutional law professor said Anstead's decision ``makes sense'' because Miami officials are fairly certain that they will be ``inundated'' with protesters who could disrupt court operations..

well gee i wonder why

the constitution is meant to conform to ALL situations, not all men's desires, ugh!!!!!!!!!

as i said before BB! BB! BB!

what do you mean BB!BB!BB!????