Judgie wudgie said there is no precedent. So now precedence decides whether an act is constitutionally compliant. Review of the actual Constitution not required. I've long suspected this, nice of judgie to write it into official ruling.
Imagine being found guilty or not solely based on opinion from someone in some other courtroom at some other time. Someone not even in, not even aware of, your own court case. Precedent hrrmmph
Put it here ... I can't wait to read it. I have the Captcha turned OFF but blogger insists it be there. You should be able to bypass it.
** Anonymous, please use a name at the end of your comment. You're all starting to look alike.
*** Moderation has been added due to Spam and a Commenter a little too caustic. I welcome comments, but talk of killing and racist (or even close to racist) are not welcome.
Jimmy is right, of course, but a lot of them are either dying, retiring, or primarying out.
ReplyDeleteThat's the good news.
edutcher, LOL!
DeleteI was hoping for Ken Paxton for AG rather than Pam Bondi. Still am. He takes zero crap.
ReplyDeleteMikey, there's something about that town that turns saints into crooks.
DeleteJudgie wudgie said there is no precedent. So now precedence decides whether an act is constitutionally compliant. Review of the actual Constitution not required. I've long suspected this, nice of judgie to write it into official ruling.
ReplyDeleteImagine being found guilty or not solely based on opinion from someone in some other courtroom at some other time. Someone not even in, not even aware of, your own court case.
Precedent hrrmmph
Rick, I don't know. Where do we go from here?
Delete