Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Montana Supreme Court Justice says Orwell's 1984 has arrived

Discussion in 'Legal' started by charlesb_la, Aug 7, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. charlesb_la

    charlesb_la Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    115
    Location:
    LA
    Imagine if they started random trash searches, you know to make us safer, it's for the children....




    From http://news.com.com/2060-10796_3-0.html?tag=nefd.bl


    A snippet....


    Justice James C. Nelson concurs.

    I have signed our Opinion because we have correctly applied existing legal theory and constitutional jurisprudence to resolve this case on its facts.

    I feel the pain of conflict, however. I fear that, eventually, we are all going to become collateral damage in the war on drugs, or terrorism, or whatever war is in vogue at the moment. I retain an abiding concern that our Declaration of Rights not be killed by friendly fire. And, in this day and age, the courts are the last, if not only, bulwark to prevent that from happening.
     
  2. MarkDido

    MarkDido Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,038
    Location:
    01-255-0-L
    Obviously, a jurist who believes his roll is to MAKE laws instead of INTERPRET them. Dangerous man! People of Montana, take note!
     
  3. Hawkmoon

    Hawkmoon Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,454
    Location:
    Terra
    How do you figure?

    This court did not "make" any law in this case. Trash has been considered fair game, without a warrant, for many years. As the judge said, the decision is based on legal precedent ... it is not judicial activism.

    I would say this judge is just the opposite of what you consider him to be. He is IMHO a conscientious, thinking jurist who applied the law as he sees it written and as has previously been established, yet he acknowledges that he has concerns about the effect of the law on society and citizens.

    Why do you consider this man dangerous? Aren't we usually begging for judges who will apply the law as written rather than bend and stretch the law well beyond any reasonable expectation of what the law actually says? Here's a judge who stuck to the law, and you're casting aspersions because of it.

    I don't understand.
     
  4. Deavis

    Deavis Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,424
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Read it again, because obviously that jurist does believe his role is to interpret laws rather than make them.

    The only thing "dangerous" about this man is that he states that he would probably not feel the same about the jurisprudence they used for this opinion in the face of a massive warrantless search specifically for the creation of a database for future use unrelated to the case at hand. Forweward thingking men concerned about proper interpretation of the law to protect your rights are indeed dangerous... if you support a police/nanny state.
     
  5. hifi

    hifi member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    318
    Maybe you read it wrong. Or was that sarcasm?
     
  6. Joejojoba111

    Joejojoba111 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,056
    I think Mark was poking fun because he knows everyone agrees with the judge, but he also knows that almost all the people here have castigated judges who made similar diatribes on different subjects.
     
  7. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,051
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    THAT is the fundamental problem: The acceptance of the perverse consequence of flawed precedent.

    Signing off on that basis, no matter the caveats, makes him part of the problem, not the solution.
     
  8. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Sad to say, I have to concur.
     
  9. Flyboy

    Flyboy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,888
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    I agree with your assessment of the problem; unfortunately, the structure of our legal system does not give lower courts the freedom to reform precedent of higher (in this case, SCOTUS) courts. All-in-all, that's probably for the best; the real solution is to get sane justices back on the Supreme Court. And, on that point, I think
    is disturbingly accurate.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page