|
Not to belabor points, but back in law school the standard formulation of the "interpretivist" school was that you have federal constitutional rights if they are either expressly stated or fairly inferred from the constitution's language or structure. The right to travel is a "structure" right - e.g. the right to petition the government for redress of grievances (first amendment) fairly implies that you can get to the seat of government to present your petition; it's also implied by, for example, the empowerment of congress to regulate interstate commerce - without travel there would be nothing to regulate. (The "noninterpretivist" view would basically leave it to judges to figure out what's right. This is a VAST oversimplification, of course.)
The other thing people miss about the "idiot" judges is that there are rights to appeal. They exist precisely because judges can get things wrong. Statistically it doesn't happen all that often (I think something like 80% of appeals end in an affirmance), but it does happen. A trial level judge gets appealed, and appeals judges sit in panels of three, so if one of them is an idiot s/he'll get outvoted.
Also, I find some of the arguing about opinions to be a bit strange, because people are misreading technical terms (like "final") to mean something that they don't mean as used in an appellate opinion. A "final" decision, as the term is used in an appeals court's opinion, means it's not "interlocutory" (which is the opposite of "final") - technically, it means that the what was done by the administrative agency or the lower court is ready to be appealed because there aren't any more substantive decisions to be made that warrant holding up taking an appeal. A decision can be appealed in the federal system only if it's "final."
|