Comments on: D.C. Circuit rejects challenge to 4-member SPCMs http://www.caaflog.com/2009/11/14/d-c-circuit-rejects-challenge-to-4-member-spcms/ Covering the Military Justice System Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:40:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Marcus Fulton http://www.caaflog.com/2009/11/14/d-c-circuit-rejects-challenge-to-4-member-spcms/#comment-10491 Marcus Fulton Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:54:52 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=3503#comment-10491 Art. 16: Well played. Art. 16: Well played.

]]> By: Article16 http://www.caaflog.com/2009/11/14/d-c-circuit-rejects-challenge-to-4-member-spcms/#comment-10483 Article16 Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:43:22 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=3503#comment-10483 Program it to hide a comment when there are at least 5 votes, 2/3 thumbs down. If you have at least five votes, greater than 1/3 thumbs up, you have been acquitted and your comment will never be hidden. Never have so few been judged by so few. "I accept the fact that I have been convicted, but I believe I can Soldier back and be an asset to this thread." Program it to hide a comment when there are at least 5 votes, 2/3 thumbs down.
If you have at least five votes, greater than 1/3 thumbs up, you have been acquitted and your comment will never be hidden.

Never have so few been judged by so few.

“I accept the fact that I have been convicted, but I believe I can Soldier back and be an asset to this thread.”

]]> By: MJW1 http://www.caaflog.com/2009/11/14/d-c-circuit-rejects-challenge-to-4-member-spcms/#comment-10482 MJW1 Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:09:00 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=3503#comment-10482 J O'C et al, Excessive down-rates only hide the post from those who are too apathetic to click the “click here to see” link. Not too much a problem for me. In fact I obsessively click on the hidden posts and read those more closely then those which are not hidden. I’d consider it a badge of honor to have my posts hidden. Really, those who complain of the new system seem a little soft for me and should probably forgo posting at all if their sensitivities are so fragile. Maybe we could schedule a group hug at the Pentagon for those who feel slighted. It is a blog and I’ve posted some fairly stupid stuff before and been lambasted. I deserved it. J O’C et al,

Excessive down-rates only hide the post from those who are too apathetic to click the “click here to see” link. Not too much a problem for me. In fact I obsessively click on the hidden posts and read those more closely then those which are not hidden. I’d consider it a badge of honor to have my posts hidden. Really, those who complain of the new system seem a little soft for me and should probably forgo posting at all if their sensitivities are so fragile. Maybe we could schedule a group hug at the Pentagon for those who feel slighted.

It is a blog and I’ve posted some fairly stupid stuff before and been lambasted. I deserved it.

]]> By: Article16 http://www.caaflog.com/2009/11/14/d-c-circuit-rejects-challenge-to-4-member-spcms/#comment-10477 Article16 Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:57:15 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=3503#comment-10477 I recused myself from down-rating you...but don't take it personally. Look how many up-rates you got, and yet you didn't know the abbreviations and quorums for the different courts-martial. I recused myself from down-rating you…but don’t take it personally. Look how many up-rates you got, and yet you didn’t know the abbreviations and quorums for the different courts-martial.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.caaflog.com/2009/11/14/d-c-circuit-rejects-challenge-to-4-member-spcms/#comment-10476 Anonymous Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:46:59 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=3503#comment-10476 no I wasnt tracking that, I am sure I am not the first person to miss something, and I am sure I won't be the last. Late Bloomer obviously wasn't either. If we are going to down-rate every post we disagree with or that doesn't make sense then there are going to be a lot of hidden posts. As for your second point, I understand the Court found it passed a due process test, but since when does a Court making a decision mean you can't think the decision is wrong? I think it's problematic to have 4 people on a panel. You don't. Apparently you or someone else thought my follow-on post merely asking why the post was down-rated also deserved a down-rate. Why I do not know, but seems to me this down-rate is going to be abused pretty quickly. no I wasnt tracking that, I am sure I am not the first person to miss something, and I am sure I won’t be the last. Late Bloomer obviously wasn’t either. If we are going to down-rate every post we disagree with or that doesn’t make sense then there are going to be a lot of hidden posts.

As for your second point, I understand the Court found it passed a due process test, but since when does a Court making a decision mean you can’t think the decision is wrong? I think it’s problematic to have 4 people on a panel. You don’t.

Apparently you or someone else thought my follow-on post merely asking why the post was down-rated also deserved a down-rate.

Why I do not know, but seems to me this down-rate is going to be abused pretty quickly.

]]> By: Article16 http://www.caaflog.com/2009/11/14/d-c-circuit-rejects-challenge-to-4-member-spcms/#comment-10475 Article16 Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:29:38 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=3503#comment-10475 Anonymous, Congress (UCMJ, Art. 16) and the President (RCM 501) have it set so there will always be 3 or more members at a SPCM. I was unclear as to whether you were tracking on that or whether you were seriously suggesting, as a thought experiment, that those rules would ever be changed so we'd have a judge giving instructions to just one or two people. Either way, your post, which I down-rated, didn't make sense to me. Added to this, I didn't understand your comment that you were "not sure why only having 4 seems ok to everyone," when the answer would be that the 6th amendment doesn't apply and the Court found that having 4 members passed a due process test. Finally, I didn't think you used the word "digress" correctly. In review of your question and John's comment, I agree that your comment was not rude or unprofessional, so I apologize for the down-rate. At least now you may down-rate this and have your revenge. Anonymous,
Congress (UCMJ, Art. 16) and the President (RCM 501) have it set so there will always be 3 or more members at a SPCM. I was unclear as to whether you were tracking on that or whether you were seriously suggesting, as a thought experiment, that those rules would ever be changed so we’d have a judge giving instructions to just one or two people. Either way, your post, which I down-rated, didn’t make sense to me. Added to this, I didn’t understand your comment that you were “not sure why only having 4 seems ok to everyone,” when the answer would be that the 6th amendment doesn’t apply and the Court found that having 4 members passed a due process test. Finally, I didn’t think you used the word “digress” correctly.
In review of your question and John’s comment, I agree that your comment was not rude or unprofessional, so I apologize for the down-rate. At least now you may down-rate this and have your revenge.

]]> By: John O'Connor http://www.caaflog.com/2009/11/14/d-c-circuit-rejects-challenge-to-4-member-spcms/#comment-10474 John O'Connor Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:25:42 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=3503#comment-10474 I sort of agree with Anon 2021. I don't give a "thumbs down" to a post even if I think it's stupid. Knowing that the "thumbs down" votes can lead to a post being hidden, I basically set the bar at giving a "thumbs down" to posts that are either offensive, off-topic, or something more than being a post I just disagree with or think is dumb. With the "thumbs ups," I'm like Willie Stargell handing out stars to the 1979 Pittsburgh Pirates. I sort of agree with Anon 2021. I don’t give a “thumbs down” to a post even if I think it’s stupid. Knowing that the “thumbs down” votes can lead to a post being hidden, I basically set the bar at giving a “thumbs down” to posts that are either offensive, off-topic, or something more than being a post I just disagree with or think is dumb.

With the “thumbs ups,” I’m like Willie Stargell handing out stars to the 1979 Pittsburgh Pirates.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.caaflog.com/2009/11/14/d-c-circuit-rejects-challenge-to-4-member-spcms/#comment-10473 Anonymous Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:21:53 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=3503#comment-10473 ok so my last post was downgraded why exactly? Even if I am completely wrong, there was nothing unprofessional or rude and the post was off-topic. I'm not sure you are supposed to down-rate a post merely because you think it's wrong or even if you think it was idiotic. ok so my last post was downgraded why exactly? Even if I am completely wrong, there was nothing unprofessional or rude and the post was off-topic.

I’m not sure you are supposed to down-rate a post merely because you think it’s wrong or even if you think it was idiotic.

]]> By: Late Bloomer http://www.caaflog.com/2009/11/14/d-c-circuit-rejects-challenge-to-4-member-spcms/#comment-10472 Late Bloomer Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:28:57 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=3503#comment-10472 I should have clarified. With 2 or fewer members, you must be unanimous to convict. I suppose that doesn't actually present any constitutional concerns now that I think about it. I actually agree that 4 seems like an unsual number. That is one huge swing vote for sure. I should have clarified. With 2 or fewer members, you must be unanimous to convict. I suppose that doesn’t actually present any constitutional concerns now that I think about it. I actually agree that 4 seems like an unsual number. That is one huge swing vote for sure.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.caaflog.com/2009/11/14/d-c-circuit-rejects-challenge-to-4-member-spcms/#comment-10471 Anonymous Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:17:12 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=3503#comment-10471 1? Isn't that a majority one way or the other? As well as 3. You can have a majority of 2-0 or a tie or 1-1 just as with 4 you can have a majority of 3-1 or 4-0 and a tie of 2-2. But apparently no one thinks it's worthy of any discussion at all so I'll digress. Not sure why only having 4 seems ok to everyone but me but fine. 1? Isn’t that a majority one way or the other? As well as 3.

You can have a majority of 2-0 or a tie or 1-1 just as with 4 you can have a majority of 3-1 or 4-0 and a tie of 2-2.

But apparently no one thinks it’s worthy of any discussion at all so I’ll digress. Not sure why only having 4 seems ok to everyone but me but fine.

]]> By: Late Bloomer http://www.caaflog.com/2009/11/14/d-c-circuit-rejects-challenge-to-4-member-spcms/#comment-10469 Late Bloomer Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:46:04 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=3503#comment-10469 @Anon 1228: Well, since it is mathematically impossible to have an integer-based majority with fewer than 3, the "slippery slope" isn't so slippery after all. @Anon 1228:

Well, since it is mathematically impossible to have an integer-based majority with fewer than 3, the “slippery slope” isn’t so slippery after all.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.caaflog.com/2009/11/14/d-c-circuit-rejects-challenge-to-4-member-spcms/#comment-10468 Anonymous Sun, 15 Nov 2009 02:34:42 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=3503#comment-10468 I'm going to guess that SCM was supposed to be SPCM so probably not talking about Summary Courts-Martial but Specials. I’m going to guess that SCM was supposed to be SPCM so probably not talking about Summary Courts-Martial but Specials.

]]> By: MJW1 http://www.caaflog.com/2009/11/14/d-c-circuit-rejects-challenge-to-4-member-spcms/#comment-10467 MJW1 Sun, 15 Nov 2009 02:07:22 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=3503#comment-10467 Anon 1228, Yes, summary courts-martial (SCM) are 1-member courts. Anon 1228,

Yes, summary courts-martial (SCM) are 1-member courts.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.caaflog.com/2009/11/14/d-c-circuit-rejects-challenge-to-4-member-spcms/#comment-10465 Anonymous Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:28:13 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=3503#comment-10465 So I assume that 3, 2 or 1 member SCM panels are A-OK too then? So I assume that 3, 2 or 1 member SCM panels are A-OK too then?

]]> By: John O'Connor http://www.caaflog.com/2009/11/14/d-c-circuit-rejects-challenge-to-4-member-spcms/#comment-10463 John O'Connor Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:39:36 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=3503#comment-10463 Sometimes easy cases make good law. Sometimes easy cases make good law.

]]>