Patterico's Pontifications


California Judge Reverses His Unconstitutional Prior Restraint

Filed under: Constitutional Law,Court Decisions — Justin Levine @ 11:05 pm

[posted by Justin Levine]

Remember that judge’s prior restraint order on the Internet that I was just shaking my head at the other week? He wisely reversed himself.

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)

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

    SPQR (26be8b)

  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)

  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)

  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)

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

    krazy kagu (f24007)

  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)

  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)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1571 secs.