We are unwilling to send police and judges into a new thicket of 4th Amendment law, to seek a creature of uncertain description that is neither a plain-view inspection nor yet a full-blown search.
We are unwilling to send police and judges into a new thicket of 4th Amendment law, to seek a creature of uncertain description that is neither a plain-view inspection nor yet a full-blown search.
A judge's lack of predisposition regarding the relevant legal issues in a case has never been thought a necessary component of equal justice, and with good reason, ... For one thing, it is virtually impossible to find a judge who does not have preconceptions about the law.
Roberts quoted approvingly from comments by Professor Scalia ... recognized that non-uniformity in the interpretation of federal law could be criticized as 'sloppy,' but asked compared to what Given the choice between non-uniformity and the uniform imposition of the judicial excesses embodied in Roe v. Wade, Scalia was prepared to choose the former alternative.
If we're picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a 'new' Constitution, we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look to people who agree with us. When we are in that mode, you realize we have rendered the Constitution useless.
What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle.
Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?
It's unrealistic to say (that while) he knows of his right to appeal, if the judge told him what he already knew, there would be a different outcome,
A law can be both economic folly and constitutional.
© 2020 Inspirational Stories
© 2020 Inspirational Stories