Talk:Florida Supreme Court
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Florida; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. | ||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) | ||||||
| High | This article has been rated as a High priority article | ||||||
|
|||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] July 1, 2008
When this date comes, someone change the Chief Justice to Peggy Quince per this article. Thanks. miranda 04:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Controversies
[edit] Integration of the Florida Bar --Bob Hurt (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: I have added this to the discussion area because I know someone will remove it from the main Florida Supreme Court page.
In 1949, the Florida Supreme Court agreed to integrate the Florida Bar into the court as its "official arm." It thereby made every bar member a member of the Judicial Branch of Florida's government. Members of the Florida Bar include Florida justices and judges, the Florida Attorney General, all ,State Attorneys and their Assistant State Attorneys, county and municipal attorneys, staff attorneys in the Executive and Legislative branches, and about 1/3 of all Florida legislators). Numerous Floridians have alleged that this constitutes an effort to create a judicial oligarchy in violation of the Constitutions of both the USA and Florida (e.g., see Judicial Accountability.
The following language of Florida Constitution's Article II Section 3 prohibits members of one branch of government from serving in other branches:
SECTION 3. Branches of government.--The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.
The following language of the Constitution for the United States of America prohibits oligarchies of any kind in governments of the Union states:
Section 4 - Republican government - The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
--Bob Hurt (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Your NPOV hate rant has been deleted. You and your JAIL4Judges friends like Nancy Jo Grant are suing the FL Supreme Court and are trying to use this page as a dumping ground, something you admit to in your own emails. http://groups.google.com/group/Lawmen/browse_thread/thread/2fba73af47606638 You've been blocked and banned before Bob. Behave. 91.193.130.16 (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] I believe in Bob Hurt! Stop the Wikipedia "trustys!"
Forwarded message ----------
From: "Bob Hurt" <bob@bobhurt.com> Date: May 20, 6:40 pm Subject: Wikipedia's benefit and blight To: Lawmen
Some powerful editors/administrators (to whom I shall refer as "trustys")of Wikipedia have blocked me from contributing to articles. They have claimed such insanities as that I have claimed I want to use Wikipedia ONLY to complain against government. I did write here in the Lawmen group that you can complain against government by writing main and discussion articles in Wikipedia pages. I did not promote that as the ONLY use of Wikipedia. Nor did I say HOW you can complain to good effect. Obviously, you have to follow Wikipedia rules established by trustys.
You see, Wikipedia trustys can Google or Yahoo search for comments a contributor made anywhere on the internet, and then they can hold that against the contributor, even though the contributor has tried to follow Wikipedia rules. At least partly for that reason, many Wikipedia trustys operate either completely or relatively anonymously, so contributors angry over content blockage cannot track them down and email them into oblivion when disagreeing with trustys' whimsical high-handedness. And to show HOW whimsical and highhanded, trustys dig up whatever they feel serves their view and use it to condemn, excoriate, and block contributors with whom they disagree. They did that to me, using my comments on my Lawmen mailing list to justify blocking me.
But let's get to the heart of this article, my intentions and recommendation regarding Wikipedia.
First I want to discuss purpose. Wikipedia has at its heart the purpose of informing the people of the world about reality, as any good encyclopedia should, in an unbiased factual manner, so that readers will trust the content and embrace it as fact. UNLIKE all the printed encyclopedias in the world, Wikipedia has virtually no page-count limit, and so it provides a potentially wonderful benefit to mankind - an unlimited knowledge base, cataloged and organized for easy access, containing innumerable cross-references you can access just by clicking a link word.
As a wiki, Wikipedia allows virtually anyone to edit and discuss content and to work on huge collaborative knowledge projects. Unlike a normal encyclopedia, Wikipedia has innumerable editors and administrators to manage the accretion of content and to police the content so whimsical, rank-and-file, un-trusted contributors like me don't pollute it with prejudiced personal opinions and so that it presents balance, fair fact and (as possible) truth. Obviously, when just anyone with just any motive contributes an article to Wikipedia, somebody needs to review it for accuracy, freedom from bias, and conformance with numerous other rules. Some trustys have set themselves and others like them up as a combination of knowledge experts and content cops to delete any and all content that does not comply with rules. Trustys have deleted virtually everything I have ever contributed. Obviously, they don't trust me or my knowledge because they don't like the way I present it, or they don't agree with my "facts."
However, I believe I can contribute good content. Although the insufferably arrogant June Maxam of North Country Gazette thinks I know nothing useful about loyalty oaths, I consider myself quite knowledgeable and effective in bringing about enhanced respect for the loyalty oath laws by Florida's public employees, particularly those who make policy. I want to expand the Wikipedia content on loyalty oaths. Under the current blockage I cannot do that.
Their perceptions about my attitude about government constitutes a major reason trustys blocked me. What does THAT tell you about those who blocked me? Maybe it tells you I wrote biased content. And maybe it tells you the trustys belong to government or operate as government or corporate shills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.77.19.51 (talk • contribs) on 21 May 2008.
