3 ms·

While this idea seems great, requiring court staff to submit pro se litigants' petitions may be a non-trivial burden. Something like 40% of federal appellate wo

by piker 9y ago

While this idea seems great, requiring court staff to submit pro se litigants' petitions may be a non-trivial burden. Something like 40% of federal appellate work is responding to (often meritless, often incomprehensible) pro se habeas petitions[0]. I wonder if a side effect of this is additional legislation intended to dampen that burden[1] at the expense of real human liberty. I hope not, but we should balance this issue and be cautious about chilling less fortunate peoples' access to these basic civil mechanisms. [0] http://www.lclark.edu/live/files/777 http://www.lclark.edu/live/files/777 [1] See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_De...

perpetualcrayon 9y ago
I get the feeling that (if I understand this correctly) maybe by putting the petitions out into the open for the world to see (by making it easy for anyone to review online) will cut down on the meritless petitions. After all, it's one thing to throw shit against a wall to see if it will stick (especially if it's a wall in DC that very few people ever look at), and an entirely different thing to throw shit against every wall in the entire US to see if it will stick, and not come out looking like a complete jackass.
avs733 9y ago
I think you argument...especially [1] is reasonable and fair. My response would be that much of that non-trivial burden seems largely created by the system, in an evolutionary biology sense they are defenses that have become defects, not inherent defects. This should seem like an opportunity for constructive reform...whether that is me being overly principled and idealistic is TBD.
azernik 9y ago
1. This is the Supreme Court. It doesn't get random pro se petitions, it gets appeals and certain politically sensitive cases. 2. Court staff already have to deal with this paperwork, they just have to deal with it in paper. This is requiring litigants to submit their filings in electronic form, which would then be automatically added to a publically queriable database. It also saves a lot of pain for lawyers - those I know would love to avoid submitting everything on dead trees, if only their local behind-the-times court would get on board.

by piker 9y ago

perpetualcrayon 9y ago

I get the feeling that (if I understand this correctly) maybe by putting the petitions out into the open for the world to see (by making it easy for anyone to review online) will cut down on the meritless petitions. After all, it's one thing to throw shit against a wall to see if it will stick (especially if it's a wall in DC that very few people ever look at), and an entirely different thing to throw shit against every wall in the entire US to see if it will stick, and not come out looking like a complete jackass.

avs733 9y ago

I think you argument...especially [1] is reasonable and fair. My response would be that much of that non-trivial burden seems largely created by the system, in an evolutionary biology sense they are defenses that have become defects, not inherent defects. This should seem like an opportunity for constructive reform...whether that is me being overly principled and idealistic is TBD.

azernik 9y ago

1. This is the Supreme Court. It doesn't get random pro se petitions, it gets appeals and certain politically sensitive cases. 2. Court staff already have to deal with this paperwork, they just have to deal with it in paper. This is requiring litigants to submit their filings in electronic form, which would then be automatically added to a publically queriable database. It also saves a lot of pain for lawyers - those I know would love to avoid submitting everything on dead trees, if only their local behind-the-times court would get on board.