I like the way you think, but too many judges are inclined to see things through the eyes of law enforcement.
A friend of mine had his feet put to the fire during sentencing by a federal judge over whether he thought it was 'funny' to bring a 'department of injustice' sign to a protest where he was later arrested for assaulting a marshall, who in fact kind of stumbled into him and then created a melee.
The judge seemed quite clearly to believe that he was a part of the 'department of justice', though the DoJ was the plaintiff in the case before him.
Even when you get a precedent set about the role and behavior of law enforcement, it's very difficult to get judges to apply it sanely.
"Well, you see, in this prior case the defendent had yellow shoes, so..."
Yeah, you're supposed to take it seriously so no one finds out what a joke it really is.
Only a judge could see that building corporate headquarters is a public use, or that growing a plant in your basement is interstate commerce.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
A friend of mine had his feet put to the fire during sentencing by a federal judge over whether he thought it was 'funny' to bring a 'department of injustice' sign to a protest where he was later arrested for assaulting a marshall, who in fact kind of stumbled into him and then created a melee.
The judge seemed quite clearly to believe that he was a part of the 'department of justice', though the DoJ was the plaintiff in the case before him.
Even when you get a precedent set about the role and behavior of law enforcement, it's very difficult to get judges to apply it sanely.
"Well, you see, in this prior case the defendent had yellow shoes, so..."
That said, something has to be done.