The problem with analyzing such articles is that many times the authors of the articles leave out important due process details imo, probably because they have never been taught the Constitution's division of federal and state government powers.
For example, if the judge was a state judge, then does Mr. Ngo understand that he might have a 14th Amendment case (...the judge...the judge...the judge...)?
"14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws [emphases added]."
After all, even people in California win 14th Amendment cases.
UC Berkeley settles landmark free speech lawsuit, will pay $70,000 to conservative group (12.4.18)
Or if the judge was a federal judge, then since domestic violence is a state power concern under the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4 (4.4), then why is this case under federal jurisdiction?
"Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence [emphases added]."
In fact, Justice Joseph Story had noted that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had made 4.4 to help prevent the untrusted federal government from dreaming up any excuse to stick its big nose (my words) into the affairs of the sovereign states.
”§ 1819. It may not be amiss further to observe, (in the language of another commentator,) that every pretext for intermeddling with the domestic concerns of any state, under colour of protecting it against domestic violence, is taken away by that part of the provision, which renders an application from the legislature, or executive authority of the state endangered necessary to be made to the general government, before its interference can be at all proper [emphasis added]. On the other hand, this article becomes an immense acquisition of strength, and additional force to the aid of any state government, in case of an internal rebellion, or insurrection against its authority. The southern states, being more peculiarly open to danger from this quarter, ought (he adds) to be particularly tenacious of a constitution, from which they may derive such assistance in the most critical periods.” —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, Article 4, Section 4.
Mr. Ngo probably needs to start reading Free Republic.
Thanks for that post. I may need to read it a few times to make sure I comprehend.