Thread: Another comment on the education system

Originally Posted by attorneyatlaw

I was not patronizing. I thought you didn't know the difference. I have never heard a defense attorney referred to as a DA, only prosecutors. Do I make deals? Hell yes I do, like roughly 90-95% of all criminal attorneys. It is called judicial economy. Our court system could not handle the case loads without plea deals or settlements.
As far as my clients being terrorists, are you asking if they are illegal aliens? I have yet to represent an illegal alien, but probably because they have not walked through my doors. I am a private defense attorney, and more likely than not, they would be assigned a public defender. If one did walk through my doors and could afford my fees, I wouldn't decline representing them based on their legal status alone. I decline representations depending on the facts of their particular account and the charges they are facing.
Just because I am a defense attorney does not mean I am trying to get all of my clients "off." Most of my clients are guilty of something; not necessarily what they are being charged with. My priority is that they get a fair shot at the legal system, even if that means they are found guilty. I try my best to do what the client wants. Most of the time what the client wants and the evidence conflict. I know this full well and the fact that they will be punished. In this case I try to convince the client that even though they want to plead not guilty the evidence will be nearly impossible to overcome and to let me fight for something less severe. I don't know anyone who has been caught speeding willing to pay the full amount of the fine, when they can pay half.

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions and explain your thoughts as a defense attorney. I can only hope I never need to hire one.

Time to stop the childishness!!!!

Are you using DA as defense attorney, or DA as in District Attorney? Makes a huge difference.

Attorneyatlaw is here to help in the fight against amnesty, not to be attacked.

Originally Posted by CitizenJustice

Time to stop the childishness!!!!

Are you using DA as defense attorney, or DA as in District Attorney? Makes a huge difference.

Attorneyatlaw is here to help in the fight against amnesty, not to be attacked.

Back off. I just thanked him/her sincerely for an honest response. I'm aware this issue needs all the help it can get and your reply leaves a lot to be desired. It's between me and the OP. Your response is over the top, IMO.

BTW, it's called a play on words to address the deals that occur between law enforcement and the judicial system which always gets the accused a better deal to save the system money, no matter how fair that deal is to the victim. IOW's a DA is still a DA. They work for the judicial system to save money and not for justice. Justice isn't about money. I hope I have made myself clear, CitizenJustice.

I'm confused. Is attorneyatlaw here because he/she is against illegal immigration? I can't tell. Please let me know.

All I know is, my 6 year old girl graduated kindergarten. At the same time, there were ESL kindergartener's that didn't learn a lick of English the ENTIRE school year, yet these kids will be integrated with my daughter's 1st grade class. Who will be getting more attention? The kids that don't speak English, or my daughter? I am so glad that I taught my child math and reading at home. She is already at a mid-1st grade reading/math level! I have even been teaching her basic algebra because I know that she will be left behind because the illegal parents don't give a crap!!! It is really up to us to educate our kids, not the district.

alexcastro wrote:

I'm confused. Is attorneyatlaw here because he/she is against illegal immigration? I can't tell. Please let me know.

Of course he's against illegal immigration. Go back and read some of his previous posts.


CitizenJustice wrote:

Time to stop the childishness!!!!

Are you using DA as defense attorney, or DA as in District Attorney? Makes a huge difference.

Attorneyatlaw is here to help in the fight against amnesty, not to be attacked.

I too feel he's being personally attacked.

Court rules in favor of state in 17-year English-learner battle
Justices: Court didn't weigh recent educational efforts

by Pat Kossan - Jun. 26, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

The U.S. Supreme Court took a major step toward ending a 17-year legal battle Thursday, saying lower courts erred by focusing too much on forcing Arizona to spend more money to help students who haven't yet learned to speak, read or write English.

The court voted 5-4 to send the Flores vs. Arizona case back to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals with instructions to consider whether Arizona has complied with civil-rights law by improving both English-learner programs and K-12 education overall.

The decision stopped short of dismissing the case but could hand back to Arizona lawmakers the power to determine how much is spent on English instruction and how such students are taught.

The ruling also removes the threat of $2 million-a-day fines that a U.S. District Court judge threatened to impose if Arizona did not fully implement and fund a language-learners program.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by conservative colleagues, sent a strong message to lower courts by questioning why schools and states should remain under the direction of federal courts for so many years.

The Court of Appeals "improperly substituted its own policy judgments for those of the state and local officials entrusted with the decision," Alito wrote.

His opinion raised doubts about whether the Flores case, originally filed in 1992 against the Nogales Unified School District, should still apply to the entire state.

Still, the high court's decision leaves room for future arguments over how much progress the state has really made with English learners. For years, such learners have lagged behind their academic peers beginning in middle school.

Attorney Tim Hogan, who represents the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the Flores family of Nogales, said that although he is disappointed in the Supreme Court's reversal of the Appeals Court, which found that Arizona's funding was inadequate, its remanding of the case to lower courts keeps the legal battle alive.

"This will give us an opportunity now to fully test the existing program that's in place for English-language learners in Arizona and whether or not that program is working," said Hogan, of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest.

The majority opinion was issued by Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissent and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Stevens and David Souter.

In weighing the case, the Supreme Court considered the fact that Flores was originally based on the Equal Education Opportunities Act of 1974. That law requires states to take "appropriate action" to help kids still learning English keep up with their academic peers. But the Supreme Court emphasized that the federal civil-rights law also entrusts states to choose how to meet the obligation.

The decision stated that the lower courts concentrated too narrowly on how much the state spent to help language learners, adding that increases in overall school funding also should be considered in determining whether the state complied with federal law.

The justices stopped short of weakening the Equal Education Opportunities Act, as some civil-rights attorneys feared. But the court said that complying with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 did help to satisfy the requirements in the 1974 law to take "appropriate action" to help students overcome language barriers.

The court reversed the decision of the federal Appeals Court that Arizona needs to improve the way it funds language instruction and sent the case back with strong directions to reconsider how much has changed in Arizona since an earlier decision in 2000. The state's changes include an increase in funding for English-language instruction and improvements in the methods used to instruct the students, including reforms made through Arizona's compliance with No Child Left Behind.

Now, attorneys will move from arguments over how much money Arizona spends on language instruction to the quality and outcomes of that instruction. The decision does not lead to a rehash of old arguments but a hashing out of new arguments, said Clint Bolick, a constitutional expert and litigation director for the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute.

"The gist of the decision is that the world in Arizona has changed," Bolick said. "What the court is telling the (lower) court to do is determine if there is a violation of federal law based on the reality in Arizona in 2009."

In his dissent, Justice Breyer concluded that the evidence showed the Appeals and District courts did consider all the changed circumstances in Arizona and ruled correctly.

"The lower courts did 'fairly consider' every change in circumstances that the parties called to their attention," Breyer wrote. "The record more than adequately supports this conclusion."

He said the majority was wrong to separate the issue of how Arizona funds its language programs and the content and success of those language programs.

"The court cannot sensibly drive a wedge (as it wishes to) between what it calls the 'incremental funding' issue and the uncured failure to comply with the requirements of federal law," Breyer stated.

The majority's decision "risks denying schoolchildren the English-learning instruction necessary 'to overcome language barriers that impede' their 'equal participation,' " Breyer added.

Thursday's ruling was also a legal victory for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, who, along with Republican lawmakers, petitioned the Supreme Court to weigh in on the case.

"This is a major step to stop federal trial judges from micromanaging state education systems," Horne said. "This affirms that important value that we the people control our government and our elected representatives and are not ruled over by an aristocracy of lifetime federal judges."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... 6main.html

My comments:

The State of Arizona, supported buy research on English language learners (ELL) instruction, indicates there is documented, academic support for the view that structured English immersion (SEI) is significantly more effective than bilingual education. The Supreme Court is agreeing that the State should have the right to determine what is best for its students, not the federal government.

The problem with out school in the past few years is NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND. The federal government keep sticking their noses in to how a state is to educated children. Most of the mandates they put forth are ineffective and a huge waste of school budgets. Hopefully now school districts can get the federal government off their backs and get back to more effectively educating kids.

So does American school have to spoon feed foreign exchange students. Or do have to obtain their own instruction if needing English? If I remember correctly most or all exchange students have to immerse into English.

Why are all these immigrants coming to America for the taxpayers to foot the bill of teaching their children English?

When is enough, enough? All foreign students should pay for their own English classes. If they do not know English what are they doing her?

Originally Posted by vmonkey56

So does American school have to spoon feed foreign exchange students. Or do have to obtain their own instruction if needing English? If I remember correctly most or all exchange students have to immerse into English.

Why are all these immigrants coming to America for the taxpayers to foot the bill of teaching their children English?

When is enough, enough? All foreign students should pay for their own English classes. If they do not know English what are they doing her?

When I lived in East Texas a couple from my church hosted a South African exchange student. His English was excellent, and he became a very good friend. It was so sad to see him go, and I wonder how he is doing today.

I agree, NO MORE taxpayer funded programs for English classes! I am sick and tired of this issue!

Originally Posted by attorneyatlaw

Originally Posted by snakeoil

Originally Posted by MW

snakeoil wrote:

Don't patronize me.

???????

Seems like you were being corrected, not patronized. After all, you did call him "Mr. DA" after he clearly stated he was a criminal defense attorney, not a prosecuter. [/quo

I didn't need to be "corrected" since I wrote what I meant and I understand the basic principle of "DA" prosecution and defense. The fine line between law and order is now called "making a deal" and I think if "Mr. DA" makes deals, he isn't on my side.

I pay for the terrorist's days in court and their incarceration, either way. "Mr. DA" should answer my question about his "clients" and "terrorists. I want to know who his "clients" are!

I was not patronizing. I thought you didn't know the difference. I have never heard a defense attorney referred to as a DA, only prosecutors. Do I make deals? Hell yes I do, like roughly 90-95% of all criminal attorneys. It is called judicial economy. Our court system could not handle the case loads without plea deals or settlements.
As far as my clients being terrorists, are you asking if they are illegal aliens? I have yet to represent an illegal alien, but probably because they have not walked through my doors. I am a private defense attorney, and more likely than not, they would be assigned a public defender. If one did walk through my doors and could afford my fees, I wouldn't decline representing them based on their legal status alone. I decline representations depending on the facts of their particular account and the charges they are facing.
Just because I am a defense attorney does not mean I am trying to get all of my clients "off." Most of my clients are guilty of something; not necessarily what they are being charged with. My priority is that they get a fair shot at the legal system, even if that means they are found guilty. I try my best to do what the client wants. Most of the time what the client wants and the evidence conflict. I know this full well and the fact that they will be punished. In this case I try to convince the client that even though they want to plead not guilty the evidence will be nearly impossible to overcome and to let me fight for something less severe. I don't know anyone who has been caught speeding willing to pay the full amount of the fine, when they can pay half.

Does the County of LA contract ( Public Defender's office) with you to handle criminal defense work on their behalf AAL?

No big deal, just curious - as in another thread - I recall you saying something about working for the county of LA.