3/1/2008

8 Responses to “California Judge Reverses His Unconstitutional Prior Restraint”

1. judge jeffrey white is a buffoon and an enemy of our constitution. the only reason he backed down was because the internet flexed its muscle. imagine carrying water for a dodgy swiss bank in a blatantly unconstitutional order. good job so far, free speech fans, but we need to finish the play with an impeachment resolution.

   assistant devil's advocate (3feb57) — 3/1/2008 @ 11:43 pm

   
   

2. Don’t be silly, ADA, an incorrect judgment is no basis for impeachment.

   SPQR (26be8b) — 3/2/2008 @ 8:31 am

   
   

3. when it’s an issue that almost any second-year law student could have gotten right and it goes to one of our most cherished liberties, i’m not as charitable as you are.

   assistant devil's advocate (1f14c6) — 3/2/2008 @ 10:57 am

   
   

4. Its not a matter of charity, ADA, it is that incorrect decisions are addressed by the judicial process itself – not by threat of impeachment.

   SPQR (26be8b) — 3/2/2008 @ 11:32 am

   
   

5. SPQR (& ADA) – I ultimately agree that impeachment might be too harsh a penalty here. After all, the judge DID reverse himself after 2 weeks of keeping an unlawful order in place.

   However, ADA has a good point in that this goes well beyond a mere ‘incorrect judgment’ that any judge might make from time to time. This was indeed an issue that was clear cut and that even a mediocre law student would know was wrong. There was no excuse for this – and I’m also concerned by judge’s obvious personal frustration that he can’t control the Internet based on his orders from the bench.

   Impeachment? No. But a strong public admonishment is in order here.

   Justin Levine (b5c8e2) — 3/2/2008 @ 11:59 am

   
   

6. Now if only the U.S Supreum Court would do the same with the infamous kelo ruling

   krazy kagu (f24007) — 3/2/2008 @ 12:10 pm

   
   

7. No, this doesn’t rate an impeachment effort (what would be the standard for impeachment in the current House, of a judge located in the Speaker’s district?), but a good, concentrated effort to keep the spotlight of publicity on him, for any reason, might make him more judicious in the future.
   I am curious though, as to why he has always (here) been identified as a “California” judge, when in fact he is a U.S.District Court judge, located in California?

   Another Drew (8018ee) — 3/2/2008 @ 1:51 pm

   
   

8. Another Drew –

   Fair point. I feel that California judge is accurate, but “Federal judge in California” would be even more accurate.

   Justin Levine (20f2b5) — 3/3/2008 @ 11:49 am