On the other hand, the whole concept of a “contemporary conscience” kind of bothers me. I guess the more callous and desensitized the so-called “contemporary conscience” becomes, the less over sight over a government action that dismembers a family.
So it is no longer enough that the government is arbitrary an capricious for the federal courts to rein in the government – now
“the requisite arbitrariness and caprice must be stunning, evidencing more than humdrum legal error.
We just endure “mere” humdrum legal errors, at least until our “contemporary” consciences are reawoken – as happened with the slapdown by federal courts when the government, in the guise of the FBI, becomes an accomplice in murder.
I note that the Boston Globe did cover this story, see http://www.boston.com/news/loc… there was no link to the entire decision, nor discussion of the continuing abridgement of the 5th Amendment.
My concern is that all that stands between you and I, and an all too often arbitrary and capricious government is…the “contemporary conscience” [whatever THAT is] of a federal judge.
“chiaroscuro series of events” —
<
p>I know what that word means in the context of art or singing, but what does it mean in the law?
Charlie – I have no idea either. And I am an appellate attorney!
<
p>I think we have had some real diminishment of the federal judiciary given who has been appointing them for so long. One of the reasons the presidency matters is, frankly, they appoint judges…
<
p>Certainly, the Bill of Rights and constitutional protections have not fared well at all – at least in my opinion.
Appointed 1994 by President Clinton.