|
 Originally Posted by BananaStand
No, I read actual excerpts from one of BK's opinions. It must have been a different case.
Fine, don't worry about it.
 Originally Posted by BananaStand
LOL, you might be right if there was no such thing as an activist judge.
NO!!!!!!! That's where CORRUPTION comes in.
Good judges rarely see ambiguity in the law. The law says what it says. If you want the law to say something else, pass a law that say something else.
Actually, yes. Any view of the Law as purely black-and-white is simply naive. Words themselves are ambiguous. Judges spend lots of their time interpreting the law, and by definition that process is subjective. If it wasn't subjective, you would always have unanimous SC decisions, for example.
 Originally Posted by BananaStand
I doesn't matter what anyone "thinks". What matters is the law. You could make the same argument that says a 17 year old girl can decide for herself to have sex with her math teacher. SHE CAN'T
No you couldn't actually make such an argument, because the law is clear and unambiguous on that. It's also clear that you're expected to stop at a stop sign. The law was instead ambiguous on this case, which is why there were dissenting opinions.
 Originally Posted by BananaStand
There are plenty of cheap abortion clinics in Mexico. She's welcome to go there any time she wants.
Funny that option was never offered to her while she was in custody.
 Originally Posted by BananaStand
Then I'm a cunt.
I think that is at least something that would be unanimously agreed on.
|