Judge Sarokin Joins the Blogosphere:
H. Lee Sarokin served as a United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey from 1979 to 1994, and was a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1994 until he retired in 1996. And more importantly for our purposes, he has just started a blog, appropriately named X-Judge. His first post, The Constitution and a Trip to the Dentist, is here.
Hat tip: Former Sarokin clerk Eric Muller.
Hat tip: Former Sarokin clerk Eric Muller.
We should never let that happen again.
Right, just like the feds indicted him for. Oh wait.
But why care about the spelling of legal concepts when you're an expert on its details?
I'll see you in my moon suit.
"No one can dispute that matters of personal appearance and hygiene can reach a point where they interfere with the enjoyment of the facility by others. But one person's hay-fever is another person's ambrosia; jeans with holes represent inappropriate dress to some, and high fashion to others. Thus, no matter how laudable and understandable the goals of the library may be, we cannot - we dare not - cross the threshold of barring persons from entering because of how they appear based upon the unfettered discretion of another.
Society has survived not banning books which it finds offensive from its libraries; it will survive not banning persons whom it likewise finds offensive from its libraries. The greatness of our country lies in tolerating speech with which we do not agree; that same toleration must extend to people, particularly where the cause of revulsion may be of our own making. If we wish to shield our eyes and noses from the homeless, we should revoke their condition, not their library cards. "
Still, I am kind of annoyed that Padilla hasnt been charged with anything. You would think if even 1/100th of the stuff they say about him were true that he would already be serving a lengthy sentence.
That's just silly. On the district court, his decisions were reviewed by appellate judges. Even on the circuit court he had to persuade his colleagues or suffer dissents. Maybe his first post isn't the finest work of blogging I've ever seen (by a far sight) and it's definitely short on reasoned argument. But that's no need to be uncivil.
Agreed.
Since never, if one is indifferent to persuading anyone that one's opinions are worth taking seriously.
I was under the impression that judges generally had near absolute power over lawyers, parties and witnesses in their courtrooms. This sort of power tends to produce the sort of deference not found on the internet.
And yeah, he made plenty of near-to-unreviewable calls on discovery and evidence. But I guarantee you that his mind was far more focused on the issues of law that were not so insolated (at least if he is like the federal judges I have known).
Through the witty sarcasm it's obvious that you believe Mr. Padilla is guilty of a serious crime at best and treason at worst. Why? Because the executive says so? Our system was set up to protect citizens (and Mr Padilla is a citizen) from that type of tyranny.
It's easy to at least see the argument for why the executive should be able to declare some foreign national an enemy combatant, and then let him rot in some cage (though I don't necessarily agree with that policy). It's simply unbelievable that anyone would argue that the executive should be able to do that to a citizen. Disgusting.
Putting stupid statements into other people's mouths is fun, isn't it? Glad I could provide a moment of amusement for you.
The Padilla case is shocking, or should be. I refer conservative readers to the reliably conservative Judge Luttig's scathing remarks on the U.S.'s conduct of the case, for those of you who didn't savor them when they were published.
Padilla doesn't have it so bad, if you ask me. Not for a guy who would behead all of you if given the chance.
You can read about Sarokin's decision here and here.