Continuing professional development: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Continuing professional development (view source)

Revision as of 07:57, 28 August 2021

102 bytes added , 28 August 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 The tide may be ebbing on the golden era of continuing professional education, but activist courts are always open to finding novel uses for it.
-None more creative than that found by District Judge Linda Parker, who recently ordered Republican Party attorneys to undergo it a sanction for “a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process” when their vexatious claims of electoral fraud during the 2020 presidential election came before her court.<ref>[https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.172.0_3.pdf ''King v. Whitmer judgment transcript]</ref>
+None more creative than that found by District Judge Linda Parker, who recently ordered Republican Party attorneys to undergo it as a sanction for “a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process” when dismissing their vexatious claims of electoral fraud during the 2020 presidential election.<ref>[https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.172.0_3.pdf ''King v. Whitmer judgment transcript]</ref>
 It is interesting to contemplate the theory of justice at work here. It can hardly be restorative or distributive, nor corrective — it axiomatic that one leaves a CPD session no wiser than when one entered it — so we conclude it was motivated by the desire to mete out ''punishment''.
-But ''twelve hours'' of it? And it might be more even than that: there were multiple charges; the sanction applies to each; the judgment does not state whether they are to be served concurrently or consecutively. Since one of the other sanctions is a reference to local professional regulators with a view to outright disbarment, whatever your view of the constitutional impact of the plaintiffs’ behaviour, this is surely cruel and unusual punishment.
+But ''twelve hours'' of it? And it might be more even than that: there were multiple charges; the sanction applies to each; the judgment does not state whether they are to be served concurrently or consecutively. Since one of the other sanctions is a reference to local professional regulators with a view to outright disbarment — following which, updated knowledge of procedural minutiae is utterly pointless, however thinly imparted —whatever your view of the constitutional impact of the plaintiffs’ behaviour, this is surely cruel and unusual punishment.
 {{sa}}