Tim d.a. Lawver
The court specifically left open door to substantive based claims. I am truly disappointed that no such approach inter alia due process has occured. IMHO, Connecticut V Doe had no business making it that far as evidenced by the 9-0. That the Rehnquist court put it on the agenda makes me very suspicious as it did judge Stevens. I have studied the constitution for some time and have yet to find the word re-deprivation therein! I am astounded the appeals court would insert it into their opinion. Maybe the real reason for GRANTING CERT was a chance for the superior court to admonish the lessor for their extraneous addition of right.
Ms. Ackerman of MI-ACLU recently warned of such cases in a web caste. I’d post a link but I am sure you listened to it. The moral of the Connecticut DPS v Doe case, if one exists, is this; Do not go complaining to the courts about process – civil or criminal – when it was knowing and intelligently waived.
Going forward one might ask for what proof I have that those whom waived are treated differently by the courts than those who refused to waive. Here is an example:
Interests in the link also named and involved the current Vice President of U.S. Mike Pence.
I also happen to reside in Rock County, WI. HOME of the Current Speaker, Paul Ryan.