02-04-2017, 02:38 PM
(02-04-2017, 02:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Certainly a good thing police officers never do that.
Not a police officer, but yes, it is smart to know. It also perfectly illustrates my point, which is that, within the law there is a lot of room for interpretation. Your saying the opinion is automatically both legal and correct simply because a judge made it is ridiculous. If such were the case there would be no need for appellate courts.
Quote:All seriousness aside you don't "know" this judge so you can't say. And secondly it will be appealed by the administration, and if it is to one of those judges that will let their "personal opinions bleed into their decisions" and find for the administration will we then be okay with calling the decision "wrong" because of it?
I don't have first hand experience with him no. I have heard a lot of second hand information though, enough that his ruling didn't surprise me in the least. As to your second point, there are some judges who are more centered than others, who tend to interpret the law without letting personal bias affect them. The trial judge for the Freddy Gray officers is an excellent example of this. I don't know a single person who took issue with his rulings in any of those cases, bench officers, attorneys, leo's, no one. I know many who snickered at this temporary stay simply by dint of who made it and why.
Judges are like any other profession, there are some who are very good and there are some who are not. The high end judges are able to remove themselves from their decisions, the not so good ones are not. This would be an example of the latter. Did you agree with every opinion by Judge Scalia? If not, why? Not only was he a judge he was a supreme court justice. Surely he knows the law better than you?
