While I support immigration regulated through a legal framework, I do not support rewarding those who broke the law to get here.
The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted.
There isn't much question that the person who obtained the WikiLeaks cables from a classified U.S. government network broke U.S. law and should expect to face the consequences. The legal rights of a website that publishes material acquired from that person, however, are much more controversial.
It is true that legality is not morality, and sticking to the law is necessary for good citizenship, but it is not sufficient.
Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal.
In the legislative branch, you make the laws... and our role as judges is to interpret the law, not to inject our own policy preferences. So our task is to give an honest construction to what laws are passed by the Legislature.
In a constitutional democracy the moral content of law must be given by the morality of the framer or legislator, never by the morality of the judge.
The Constitution overrides a statute, but a statute, if consistent with the Constitution, overrides the law of judges. In this sense, judge-made law is secondary and subordinate to the law that is made by legislators.
It's hardly a radical idea to suggest that regulators and legislators understand the law now, is it?
In the U.S., free speech and the press are protected by the First Amendment. It has a clarity unmatched by modern legislators and declares that 'Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or the press.'
Well, I always say the law was meant to be interpreted in a lenient manner. And that's what I try to do, is sometimes I lean to one side of it, sometimes I lean to the other.
We will make the law clearer on parents' liability for failing to prevent their child being subjected to FGM, and we are working to improve the police response.
If someone feels they're being maliciously treated, then they should sue for libel. And if someone is malicious, if they are reckless, they will have no defence in law at all.
Many of the worst cases that triggered the campaign for libel reform involved corporations suing critics, so these particular sections of the bill are vital to reduce future abuses of libel law.
When I attended a forum on libel reform at the British Academy in 2011, 20 figures ranging from law professors to leading libel law firm, Carter Ruck, from MPs to free speech groups, discussed the issue of corporations. There was unanimous agreement that there needed to be restrictions on the right of corporations to sue in libel.
First I went to the Sorbonne to do my licence en lettres, but I also started to study law.
One of the litmus tests for judicial conservatism is the idea of judicial restraint - that courts should give substantial deference to the decisions of the political process. When Congress and the president enact a law, conservatives generally say, judges should avoid 'legislating from the bench.'
Immigration is a federal issue. The failing of Washington to implement an immigration system that works for our families and our businesses - it's Washington's failure. For us locally in Colorado, it's really important that all people here feel comfortable with their local law enforcement.
If it weren't for Moore's law changing the playing field continuously, I would have been long gone. The rapid pace of hardware evolution still keeps things fresh for me.
There's no law against stupid - I learned that a long time ago.
