« "America's Sheriff" gets more than 5 years in the federal pen despite acquittals | Main | "Is Crime Victims Rights Law Being Misused in Environmental Cases?" »
April 27, 2009
Circuit courts say the darndest things
I make an effort to read just about every published federal appellate ruling dealing with sentencing issues, and sometimes this effort rewards me with amazing nuggets of wisdom from circuit judges. For example, I learned something new about the US Constitution from the final paragraph of the Eleventh Circuit's work today in US v. Aldrich, No. 08-15556 (11th Cir. April 27, 2009) (available here). Specifically, thanks to Aldrich, I now know that "[t]here is no constitutionally significant difference between masturbating in front of a minor in person versus doing so via web camera."
April 27, 2009 at 09:26 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e201156f61ceb5970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Circuit courts say the darndest things:
Comments
Prof. Berman: You know your perplexity and frustrated feeling from the idiocy of that passage? Same feeling comes from every page of every law book, and every appellate decision.
The entire output of the lawyer criminal cult enterprise is idiotic. It is the cult indoctrination of law school. It is so good, it made you fail to spot the issue of accepting supernatural core doctrines, unlawful in this secular nation, despite an IQ of 300. That IQ will not be brought up as an aggravating factor in the trials of the hierarchy of the criminal cult enterprise. The IQ test was designed for an educational setting and not for use in a tribunal.
The sole exception to the uninterrupted idiocy is any opinion by OW Holmes.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 28, 2009 10:44:31 AM
Posting a quote by itself without proper context to expose its silliness is akin to clipping the wings off a bird and blaming it for being unable to fly.
If the poster above bothered to read the opinion, he would realize that it was the defense that raised the frivolous due process argument, forcing the court to respond with that particular sentence.
Posted by: Not so funny... | Apr 29, 2009 11:15:53 PM
