austindefender

Criminal defense in Austin Texas.

Why Judges Should Not Be Elected

Posted By on June 10, 2009

It’s kind of funny, but also kind of scary, coming across people who have very strong opinions about things they know nothing about.

Case in point: Blue Collar Muse.

It is difficult to conceive of more ignorant, stupid and asinine judges than those in this story. It is also difficult to believe any of them are men or parents.

A man photographed a 16 year old girl, without her knowledge or permission, in a retail store. The photo was a type of soft core porn filming known as “up-skirt” shots. He was properly arrested and charged with a felony!  The court, however, found he had done nothing wrong since the 16 year old should know wearing a skirt in public was granting permission for someone to photograph her in a humiliating and pornographic manner.

I keep running this story over and over in my head waiting for the lightning strike that will cause it to all make sense. I’ve given up. It doesn’t make sense and it’s never going to. Probably because I went to seminary and learned right from wrong and not law school where they evidently teach how to give Rights to those doing wrong.

Muse is right that the story will never make sense to him; at least not until he reads the opinion, or the law.

The law says it’s a crime to use equipment to look at a person “when the person viewed is in a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

What they teach in law school, contrary to what Muse thinks, is that laws mean what they say – not what you wish they said, or think they should say.

When judges interpret laws, they assume the legislature knows the meaning of the words it uses, and that it intends the law to mean what it actually says.

Applying those principles to the case at hand leads to the conclusion that – no matter how reprehensible the defendant’s conduct – he did not violate this law.

Judicial activism, judicial review and other black robed ridiculousness we rail against are embodied in this tale of legal lunacy. It’s unclear if there are any precedents for the court’s failure to uphold the Constitutional rights of this young woman. It’s unclear if the court might be able to unconstitutionally appeal to some foreign law or precedent in support of their error.

It’s “unclear” to Muse because he doesn’t actually know what he’s talking about.

He is, like too many other people, happier being ignorant and outraged, than in knowing the facts.


Comments

Leave a Reply

Security Code:

%d bloggers like this: