No. No it isn't. This ruling does not state that hacking is legal, it says that it isn't a 4th Amendment violation.
As I said in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12016508
>Someone not having a reasonable expectation of privacy in a thing does not mean it is legal to hack their computer.
And there's an explicit legal exemption of hacking for law enforcement in the CFAA.
Judges are supposed to be experts at the law and better at this stuff than "regular normal people". That's why they spend years in law school, and why judges aren't just randomly selected from the general population.
These days, they simply don't. They need to eliminate that entirely. These positions should be appointed by elected state legislatures or elected county governance boards (actually, the clerk position should simply be a salaried employee position).
> while one scrambles up a nearby tree
I'm not sure that is just a nervous reflex or the result of the logic implication "If that's a Tiger and I stay then I will die". Even if the thought becomes hardwired, it would have to have been logically evaluated before it became subconscious. To react and be afraid, the danger must be recognized and categorized, "If the grass twitches then something moved it", etc. etc. Going down that argument, small life forms would be able of some small amount of logic reasoning, too. As long as those grow bulks of neurons, I don't see why that should be wrong.
> just look at your first sentence
What are you trying to say?
Nothing, but it has everything to do with the point immediately proceeding - evolutionary pressure.
> ...it would have to have been logically evaluated before it became subconscious.
Yes, and at that point it would no longer be logic based - it would be pattern matching. The human brain is a pattern matching machine, because historically that has offered a major advantage. For your position to be true, that such a flight mechanism is logic based, then you would have to believe that the behavior would immediately change in the event of conflicting information being presented. That doesn't happen, see confirmation bias (or any other kind of bias).
> What are you trying to say?
Exactly what I did. Your statement was illogical, but I'm starting to suspect that we might not be conversing in your native language - which would also explain it.
> then ... to justify their rulings
Well, unless justification and judgment aren't pretty much synonym, that's a contradiction? The subconscious decision met by such a judge should be guided by an organic sound understanding of justice. The verbalization of this kind of emotion should only bring up the true reasons of thought, maybe polished and cut short. At least, that would be my lame excuse.