6 ms·

Haven't read the opinion, but I'd anticipate that this will be reversed on appeal. My guess is that this was either an Obama or Clinton judge. Both my Crim Pr

Haven't read the opinion, but I'd anticipate that this will be reversed on appeal. My guess is that this was either an Obama or Clinton judge. Both my Crim Pro and Con Law professors skipped border search cases and summed them up with "you have no rights at the border." That's been the common law since King Tut.

pjc50 7y ago
> That's been the common law since King Tut. Much immigration law is pure statute and dates from the 20th century. Border enforcement has varied hugely, and often included internal border and migration enforcement. (The British Empire had almost what we would call EU-style "free movement" exactly up to the point where nonwhite people started taking advantage of it in significant numbers, with the Ugandan Asians fleeing Idi Amin in the 60s.)
ars 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denise_J._Casper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denise_J._Casper Obama Judge. But you should realize you are basically saying Judges are not impartial arbiters, but rather biased based on who appointed them.
- booboolayla 7y ago
  If that wasn't the case, liberals wouldn't complain about Trump appointing Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and hundreds of federal judges.
- MaupitiBlue 7y ago
  Not quite. I’m saying that liberal judges tend to ignore the law when it comes to highly political issues. For example, how many opinions have you read from Ginsburg where she says “I personally disagree with this outcome, but the law is clear.”? Quite rarely.
  - larkost 7y ago
    I would argue that this is not really a "liberal" thing. Up until the 1970's the courts (including the Supreme Court) regularly found that the right to bear arms was in the context of establishing a militia, and not really a personal right. They consistently citied the "A well regulated Militia" part. The law was clear. Nowadays Supreme Court president effectively ignores the militia part, and has created a personal right mostly out of whole cloth. So 200 years of president out the window, mostly for a political issue.
    - homonculus1 7y ago
      That interpretation is farcical and was rightly overturned. How can a right be held by the collective if it is not protected for the individual? Are we to believe that individual journalists may be hauled off to jail without violating the freedom of "the press"? Collective rights are held by the States. "The people" are individuals and the prefatory militia clause is not a limit.
      - iron0013 7y ago
        The founders included that clause for a reason.
        homonculus1 7y ago
        The Supreme Court opinion in DC v. Heller explains why that clause was included: >The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opinion-1962738 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opi...
        iron0013 7y ago
- claar 7y ago
  To interpret words, as a judge does, is inherently biased. Just because two people disagree on an interpretation of law does not mean they are not applying that law in good faith - we all have worldviews and beliefs that naturally color our understanding of reality - which includes our understanding of laws. We attempt to write laws clearly to avoid personal interpretation, but it's impossible to avoid all interpretation. Thus we appoint wise judges to do so for society. Even wise judges have unique worldviews.
- raincom 7y ago
  Richard Posner from the 7th circuit said something like this: (a) decide which way one wants to rule (b) find the relevant reasoning to effect (a). What we are told is the other way around, a fiction: Reasoning drives the decisions. Sure, judges can't decide arbitrarily. They have a range of reasonings, a set of outcomes, along with prevailing political/intellectual/economic winds. Just pick an appropriate combination.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> That's been the common law since King Tut. Common law started long after King Tut, and in any case the Constitution isn't overridden by common law where they conflict. While this particular issue has been controversial, there idea that you have no rights at the border is unsupportable either in the text of the Constitution or the case law, and you should feel cheated that you had two professors that did such an inexcusably bad job of explaining the law, if your description of their lessons is correct.

pjc50 7y ago

> That's been the common law since King Tut. Much immigration law is pure statute and dates from the 20th century. Border enforcement has varied hugely, and often included internal border and migration enforcement. (The British Empire had almost what we would call EU-style "free movement" exactly up to the point where nonwhite people started taking advantage of it in significant numbers, with the Ugandan Asians fleeing Idi Amin in the 60s.)

ars 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denise_J._Casper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denise_J._Casper Obama Judge. But you should realize you are basically saying Judges are not impartial arbiters, but rather biased based on who appointed them.

booboolayla 7y ago
If that wasn't the case, liberals wouldn't complain about Trump appointing Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and hundreds of federal judges.
MaupitiBlue 7y ago
Not quite. I’m saying that liberal judges tend to ignore the law when it comes to highly political issues. For example, how many opinions have you read from Ginsburg where she says “I personally disagree with this outcome, but the law is clear.”? Quite rarely.
- larkost 7y ago
  I would argue that this is not really a "liberal" thing. Up until the 1970's the courts (including the Supreme Court) regularly found that the right to bear arms was in the context of establishing a militia, and not really a personal right. They consistently citied the "A well regulated Militia" part. The law was clear. Nowadays Supreme Court president effectively ignores the militia part, and has created a personal right mostly out of whole cloth. So 200 years of president out the window, mostly for a political issue.
  - homonculus1 7y ago
    That interpretation is farcical and was rightly overturned. How can a right be held by the collective if it is not protected for the individual? Are we to believe that individual journalists may be hauled off to jail without violating the freedom of "the press"? Collective rights are held by the States. "The people" are individuals and the prefatory militia clause is not a limit.
    - iron0013 7y ago
      The founders included that clause for a reason.
      - homonculus1 7y ago
        The Supreme Court opinion in DC v. Heller explains why that clause was included: >The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opinion-1962738 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opi...
        iron0013 7y ago
claar 7y ago
To interpret words, as a judge does, is inherently biased. Just because two people disagree on an interpretation of law does not mean they are not applying that law in good faith - we all have worldviews and beliefs that naturally color our understanding of reality - which includes our understanding of laws. We attempt to write laws clearly to avoid personal interpretation, but it's impossible to avoid all interpretation. Thus we appoint wise judges to do so for society. Even wise judges have unique worldviews.
raincom 7y ago
Richard Posner from the 7th circuit said something like this: (a) decide which way one wants to rule (b) find the relevant reasoning to effect (a). What we are told is the other way around, a fiction: Reasoning drives the decisions. Sure, judges can't decide arbitrarily. They have a range of reasonings, a set of outcomes, along with prevailing political/intellectual/economic winds. Just pick an appropriate combination.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> That's been the common law since King Tut. Common law started long after King Tut, and in any case the Constitution isn't overridden by common law where they conflict. While this particular issue has been controversial, there idea that you have no rights at the border is unsupportable either in the text of the Constitution or the case law, and you should feel cheated that you had two professors that did such an inexcusably bad job of explaining the law, if your description of their lessons is correct.