Could we just have all judges watch “The Big Lebowski?”

One more time, with feeling!  -- FOR YOUR INFORMATION, THE SUPREME COURT HAS ROUNDLY REJECTED PRIOR RESTRAINT!!!!!

One more time, with feeling! — FOR YOUR INFORMATION, THE SUPREME COURT HAS ROUNDLY REJECTED PRIOR RESTRAINT!!!!!

The National Judicial College should require every judge that attends to watch The Big Lebowski. Further, every state should require a person to view it before they can assume the powers of a judge. It would result in a lot less unconstitutional orders from judges who seem to not know any better when it comes to issuing prior restraint orders.

Walter Sobchak made it pretty damn clear when he shouted “FOR YOUR INFORMATION, THE SUPREME COURT HAS ROUNDLY REJECTED PRIOR RESTRAINT!”

I mean, ’nuff said, right?

Even if you watch The Big Lebowski, you will be infected with a bit of Dudeism, which will never hurt when you are trying to judge cases.

But, more to the point of this post, if you don’t know the first thing about prior restraint, even if you never heard of Near v. Minnesota, you’d still maybe have a little intellectual curiosity about that statement, right?

And then, Public Citizen wouldn’t have to come and make you look foolish for issuing a prior restraint. (Public Citizen Blog); Brief in Dietz v. Perez)

8 Responses to Could we just have all judges watch “The Big Lebowski?”

  1. Jack B. says:

    Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

  2. Jack B. says:

    I think your Spam filter eats comments containing Big Lebowski quotes…

    I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck so that askimet could delete a comment!

  3. shg says:

    As Ron Kuby told me, the Dude abides.

  4. MKC says:

    I would add two things to this case as well as the Florida case. You may or may not know that equity has no jurisdiction to issue these injunctions. That no injunction could issue against a libel before a trial on the merits was a common law as well as a constitutional principle. See e.g.,, Respublica v. Oswald, 1 US 319 (1 Dall. 319), 325 (1788); Huggonsons Case, 2 Atk. 469 (1742); see also Roscoe Pound, Equitable Relief Against Defamation and Injuries to Personality, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 640 (1916) (acknowledging and disagreeing with the principle). You don’t even need the First Amendment.

    Second, WHAT. THE. FUCK!? Why are judges pissing on the First Amendment? How has this come to pass? I don’t understand. I am sad.

  5. SharealittleSunshine says:

    I got a beverage here, man!

  6. Roy Warden says:

    In order to curtail the rights of an unpopular speaker (one who challenged the proprieties of “Open Border Policy”) Tucson Az. Municipal Court Judges have routinely issued non-appealable orders of prior restraint, as a condition of release from custody.

    The opening brief of such a case is due in Pima County Superior Court on January 14, 2013. From there it will wind itself up to the Arizona Supreme Court, at which time they will deny jurisdiction to hear the case.

    Thereupon; I will file in Federal Court.

    Think a “police state” can’t happen HERE in the “Land of the Free?”

    Guess What? It already exists, HERE in Tucson Arizona.

    BTW: I’m “Roy Warden,” the guy who was arrested in the Fall of 2011 for challenging the Tucson City “Civility Accord,” which, amongst other things, prohibited speech critical of Tucson Public Officials during “Call to the Audience” before the Mayor and City Council.

    I will post the link on this blog.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,613 other followers

%d bloggers like this: