Judge Andrew Napolitano: What happens if the whole purpose of an independent judiciary is to be...
Judge Andrew Napolitano: What happens if the whole purpose of an independent judiciary is to be antidemocratic?
.What happens if the whole purpose of an independent judiciary is to be undemocratic? What if your job is to ignore the policy? What if its duty is to preserve the freedoms of the minority, even a minority of one, of the tyranny of the majority? What happens if that tyranny can come from unjust laws or the unjust application of a just law?
What happens if we have the right to insist that judges be neutral and open-minded instead of supporters and predisposed to a particular ideology? What happens if the presidential candidates promise to nominate judges and judges who believe they will embrace certain ideologies?
What if history shows that Supreme Court justices appointed by Democratic presidents tend to remain faithful to their pre-judicial ideologies? What if history shows that judges appointed by Republican presidents tend to migrate to the left, towards the middle of the ideological spectrum? What would happen if some judges appointed by the Republicans, such as Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy and David Souter, migrated along the ideological spectrum until they became pillars of the abortion jurisprudence of the superior court, despite the fact that the presidents who appointed did they publicly expect the opposite?
What if the real business of judging is interpreting words in the Constitution and in the federal statutes? What happens if there is no ideologically neutral way of doing that?
What happens if a theory of constitutional interpretation, defended by people who say that we have a "living Constitution", informs us that words written decades or centuries ago should be interpreted and understood according to their current meaning? What if this theory allows judges to decide what those words mean today?
What happens if the opposite theory of constitutional interpretation, called "originalism", informs that the meanings of the words in the Constitution and the federal statutes were fixed permanently at the time of their promulgation? What would happen if this theory links judges to the well-founded historical meanings of the words and values they express? What happens if there is no reconciliation between these two theories of constitutional interpretation? What happens if the judges and judges must choose one or the other or the variants of each one?
What happens if the Constitution proclaims itself as the supreme law of the earth? What if that means that all presidential laws and prerogatives that are contrary to the Constitution are unconstitutional and the courts before which those laws and prerogatives are challenged have the duty to declare them unconstitutional?
What happens if judges and judges, when faced with laws they like are clearly unconstitutional, often find creative ways to defend those laws? And if that is not what judges and judges should do but they do it anyway?
What happens if the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits searches and confiscations by the government without a search warrant issued by a judge and based on the probable cause of a crime? What happens if that amendment also requires that all search warrants issued by judges specifically describe the location to be searched and the person or thing to be seized?
What if the Supreme Court has consistently held that surveillance constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment? What would happen if the British practice of spying on the settlers was one of the forces that animated the Fourth Amendment?
What happens if the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the Patriot Act and its various amendments authorize federal courts to issue orders that are not based on the probable cause of a crime and authorize? without a court order Surveillance for intelligence gathering purposes? What if the administrations of George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump have taken the extreme position that these laws allow surveillance without a court order in all the world In the United States, even those who are not suspected of evil?
What happens if this surveillance without guarantees has subjected every person in the United States to the loss of rights protected by the Fourth Amendment? What would happen if the Supreme Court characterized the principle of those rights as one of the most protected by civilized society, namely, the right to be alone?
What if a young lawyer who helped draft the Patriot Act in 2001 and its amendments in 2005 and who informed President Bush that he could spy on all the people all the time was rewarded for that work with a lifetime appointment to the court of federal appeals in Washington? Dc
What would happen if this same lawyer, now a federal appellate judge, was faced with a case in which the federals had spied on the Americans in flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment? What would happen if this judge was publicly committed to originalism, which informs that the Fourth Amendment prohibits everyone Surveillance without order of people in America, no matter their purpose?
What would happen if this judge used linguistic stunts to resolve this conflict between internal surveillance without a court order, which a former president said was constitutional, and the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment, which he knew would prohibit government spying without a warrant? ?
What would happen if this judge, claiming a loyalty to the originalism but nevertheless embracing its opposite, the concept of a "living Constitution", ruled that the feds can spy on any person at any time, as long as they do it for intelligence? Collection and not police purposes? What happens if this intelligence gathering exception to the Fourth Amendment exists only in the mind of this judge and not in the Fourth Amendment itself? What happens if the Patriot Act allows the exchange of intelligence data with the police? What happens if, in the opinion of this judge, every bit of information on your mobile device or computer (financial, legal, medical, personal, professional, intimate) is available for government oversight on a whim and without a warrant? registry?
What happens if that judge just joined the Supreme Court? What would happen if their perverse views about privacy and the Fourth Amendment were never discussed in their confirmation hearings, but their alcohol consumption habits and sexual tendencies? What if it's too late to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution? What do we do about it?
SOURCE LINK ERESVIRAL.COM https://www.beviral.online
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario