A woman who's being evicted from her apartment is quite upset with the judge involved with the case. So upset that she posted an ad on eBay, "Judge for Sale." The judge in question is not amused. There's talk of legal action being taken against her.
In one of the articles about the fracas, the reporter contacted a partner at a large law firm, a first amendment specialist apparently. The partner was quoted as saying, somewhat authoritatively, that the woman would have no defense. The quote gave the impression that this area of the law is cut and dry.
I'm not (yet) a First Amendment expert and can't speak to the doctrinal tenets this case might touch. But what I have learned is that the law is never so simple. In fact, we've been explicitly taught how, when presented with a position to defend for which precedent might not seem to support, to find a way to differentiate the matter at hand from those previous, to find a way to use the basic building blocks of the law so that justice can be done.
The law is a malleable thing, and it does lay citizens a disservice to build up the false perception, so often held, that it's anything more precise.
Posted 12/16 but backdated closer to when the thought struck me. In fact, I met a judge the other night (a different judge) and related my concern to him. He validated my sense of things: if presented with a compelling argument, which the spirit of justice would seem to support, he would do his part as a judge to make sure the law as he rendered it suited the circumstances appropriately.
Comments (1)
Do you know whether the judge is trying to get at her through contempt proceedings or through a defamation suit.
It strikes me that a defamation action against the woman would be very unlikely to succeed, while a contempt proceeding might.
In any event, I suspect that e-bay pulled the ad off as violative of terms of service the instant the judge informed it.
Mark
Posted by Mark | December 17, 2004 10:34 AM
Posted on December 17, 2004 10:34