User talk:CT2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Flemming L. Norcott, Jr.

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Flemming L. Norcott, Jr., and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/justice4.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 13:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright material has been removed as requested. CT2008 16:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joette Katz

I've added additional clarification. WP should not pretend her decisions in Bell and Johnson (as well as other criminal law decisions) did not elicit negative reaction from the CT General Assembly, That is a historical fact. Whether this reaction was warranted is a matter of opinion, and removing the context for the consternation (they certaintly believed shooting a trooper 17 times was "heinous" when they passed the bill)amounts to doing PR for the Justice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.60 (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this entry. You have modified one of the sentences so that it now reads "This decision led prominent legislators to conclude it had effectively voided the state's persistent violent offender law, and a new law would need to be implemented". This is followed by reference #2 (the Hartford Courant article). Nothing in that reference refers to statements by prominent legislators, rather it comments on the concerns of the prosecutor in that case. I am sure that you are correct that certain legislators feel that way and suggest that you use a better reference (should the sentence remain, and I continue to feel that it should not). I agree that there should not be any PR for or against the judicial department or other players in this matters. However, now you are promoting the point of view of selected legislators in order to support your personal point of view and it is not clear that this is particularly relevant at this point in time to an entry of this sort. There is no indication or commentary on whether other legislators agree that the statute has been voided or eviscerated. Should their thoughts be noted in this entry or is it too early to speculate on such matters? No law has yet been changed. Legislators often have differing opinion about many matters including court decisions, particularly if a verdict or sentence is overturned or the case is a high profile one. Is this entry the appropriate place for the airing of differing legislative (or other) opinions and concerns? If so, how should such differences of opinion be discussed in an entry of this sort while both maintaining neutrality and keeping the focus on the topic of the entry? Why did you choose to comment on the viewpoint of selected legislators and not others? Does this reflect your personal POV? You seem to be ahead of the game on this issue and continue to insert your POV into this article. It is clear that you feel strongly about this matter, but I would encourage greater neutrality on your part. This entry should not be a political debate, rather it should be a dispassionate relating of facts and events. Your changes, not those of mine or others who previously edited this entry, have moved this away from neutrality. I again encourage you to refrain from making this about your personal points of view and biases by selectively relating information that supports your opinions or those of selected legislators. By the way, who is WP? Why are you commenting (see above) that WP is pretending something (leading me to believe that you are referring to the judge in this case)? I have no idea what the judge was thinking about this case or its consequences, nor I expect do you. My guess, however, is that judges are well aware that their decisions will elicit reactions from legislators. It is my understanding that this is an expected part of the process and perhaps sometimes a desired goal on the part of the judges making decisions. Not being a judge myself, nor a legislator, nor a lawyer, you will have to ask one of these members of the legal community what their thought processes are. It is clear, however, that neither your speculations nor mine on such matters should be driving the editing of Wikipedia entries, including this one. Thanks for your indulgence on this matter. Time does not permit further comments on my part at this point in time on other issues that you have raised. CT2008 12:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've spent a half hour saying your opinion is the only one that matters. In an adversarial system the reasoning of those disapporving of judical decisions should be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.60 (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said that only my opinion matter -- those are your words not mine. The process is a complex, balancing one across many peoples' points of view, including executive, legislative, judicial, public, and the press. I do prefer that many voices get heard which is why my personal preference would be, in most cases, to see juries make decisions and not judges. I certainly believe that the issues you have raised are important ones. I would suggest two things: accuracy and fairness. If I cared that much only about my point of view, I would have changed the text of the entry as you have done. I have not done so. I suggest that the issues raised, which are broad and require considerable background, would be more appropriate if they appeared on the Connecticut Supreme Court page, or some other page, where they could more broadly be set in the context of the larger court's decisions, their reception, and their consequences (as was done on that page with the Kelo decision). Thanks for adding the supporting link from State Senator Fasano. You might want to also add this recommendation quoted on the Senator's page that you referenced: "Strengthen Connecticut’s Persistent Offender Law by following the state Supreme Court’s recommendation to grant juries the power to determine enhanced sentences on criminals they deem to be dangerous persistent offenders." It is the duty of the court to determine if, in their professional opinion, a law is constitutional. It is then the obligation of the legislature to fix, or replace, the particular law as was apparently done in this case. I suggest that you also change "State v. Couchence" that you added to the entry to "State v. Courchesne" which is the proper spelling. You should, for purposes of verifiability, attach an appropriate reference of your choosing. One possibility is Matthew J. Hertko, "Statutory interpretation in Illinois: abandoning the plain meaning rule for an extratextual approach," University of Illinois Review, V. 2005, #1, 377-405. By the way, although Senator Fasano referenced State v. Bell, the Hertko article indicates that the Courchesne decision was the one that most immediately led to the Connecticut legislature passing the statute that re-established and codified the pre-Courchesne standard, although this natural tension between legislature and judiciary in Connecticut stretches back to at least the 1968 Supreme Court decision in Adams v. Rubinow, 157 Conn. 150. This judicial-legislative wrangling is documented in a memo from Mitchell W. Pearlman of Governor's Rell staff to Thomas J. Groark, Jr., Chairman of the Governor's Commission on Judicial Review dated June 14, 2006 (this can be found on the Governor's website). I am sorry to be so long-winded, but you (not me) have introduced new material on this page that requires a lot of background, detail, and, possibly, debate and discussion. I would suggest that this particular page is not the appropriate place for this kind of complex debate and detail because it requires significantly greater context that would appear to be appropriate for an entry of this sort. Perhaps a "plain law statutes" page or a "statutory construction" or a "judicial decisions and their consequences" page would be the way to go. Singling out this particular jurist's page to raise these difficult issues simply makes it look like you have a personal axe to grind about either the judge or the particular decisions that they authored. You have not yet convinced me otherwise. That is why I keep raising the issue of NPOV and providing detailed information for your consideration. Sorry again if it takes me a long time to get these thoughts out. I was trying to be courteous. I didn't realize that was something that I would need to apologize for. Thanks for your patience. CT2008 19:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(PLEASE NOTE: I have moved the above discussion regarding Joette Katz from this, my User talk page ( User talk:CT2008) and the User talk page of the user with IP address 68.14.84.60 (User talk:68.14.84.60) to Talk:Joette Katz, and have arranged these comments chronologically in order to consolidate the discussion of this topic and move it to where it seems most relevant. I am concerned about the issues of NPOV, accuracy, and adherence to the policy on biographies of living persons on the Joette Katz entry and will be looking into this more carefully when time permits. I am happy to work with user 68.14.84.60 to ensure that an accurate, unbiased entry that conforms to Wikipedia policies is the end result and have made a number of suggestions about how to move in that direction. I know the 61.14.84.60 and I presently differ on the best way to do this and invite other Wikipedia editors to take a look at the Joette Katz page, the history of changes made to it, and the discussion regarding the nature and motivation of these changes. Thanks in advance for your assistance with this matter. CT2008 15:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC))