Careful what we wish for...
See NCSteve at 5:30
http://www.balloon-j.../#comment-4760342
For anyone who gives a damn about the rule of law, and in particular anyone who fears that conservative judges are going to spend the next three decades trying to lawlessly impede the agenda of the people who can actually win elections, his opinionÂs reasoning is very troubling. ItÂs raw judicial activism of the most blatant kind and raw judicial activism by Bush appointees should give one pause, even if itÂs done in the service of all that is Right and Good.
Basically, he says Âyeah, I know the FISA court has looked at it, and yeah, I know there are two Supreme Court cases on point that seem to be controlling, and yeah, there are a lot of other lower court cases that are contrary to what IÂm saying here, but IÂve decided that I donÂt have to follow Supreme Court precedent because, you know, stuff is like, different now, than it was all they way back in 1979.Â
Trial court judges are free to express doubts about the continued viability of mandatory authority in light of changed social or economic or even technological circumstances and commend their views to the appellate courts. But they donÂt get to just disregard existing fucking precedent just because they donÂt like it!
[...]
:-/
[edit:] Direct linky and excerpt added.
Cheers,
Scott.
