They are children in adult bodies.
1 Like
A broken justice system is far from what we have – which is just a few laws you don’t like,
So what. The judge already dismissed the charge.
Yes, the judge should have been be dismissed or recused himself. He may own stock in a Gun company.
Judicial disqualification
Description
Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, is the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer. [Wikipedia]
No, it’s broken and has been for centuries. It favours white males and prosecutes anyone who isn’t a white male. It’s starting to be corrected and justice is starting to be served, BUT it wasn’t served concerning the victims of Rittenhouse. He should be in prison.
1 Like
What I meant was, the system is broken when voters say it’s okay to have dumb laws
2 Likes
I disagree. Dumb laws can be necessary and smart laws can be unnecessary.
Is dumb interpretation of laws necessary?
1 Like
I think it comes with the territory.
1 Like
It seems to come with your territory.
Dumb can mean many things, illegal being one of them.
The legal system is a pyramid, with the constitutional texts on the top.
By experience, whatever says the text of the law, the judge can and must interpret her in an intelligent and sensible way.
And in many cases, the judge must put aside a dumb text if it is contrary to an upper one, or just inappropriate.
I have even see cases when a judge decision says the opposite of the law, and every one agrees.
Bus this must be very very limited and only done for imperative reasons. The judges are not the law makers. Most of the times, they use the interstice of the law, its ambiguities to give a coherent solution to a case.
Welllllll. Aren’t judges interpreters of the law? That’s what a “precedent” is. A judge makes a ruling. If it is appealled, it moves up to higher courts. That’s how we got the decisions that money is speech, and abortions are legal. Those are now “law”.
1 Like
Funny, giving a congressman a car is bribery, giving him money is free speech.
Is say that’s a bad law, but now it’s the precedent, so, Congress would have to make a law that would limit how much money they get from rich people. That’ll happen.
Strange, money is defined as a “means of exchange” or “quid pro quo” . How the SCOTUS could torture the English language by declaring it “free speech” is a complete mystery to me.
And the latest court cases deepen the mysterious ways of SCOTUS even further.
Have they forgotten this fundamental tenet;
Free Speech
Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.
Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”[4]
Now, there are not law, they are interpretations of the law. An interpretation can change or can be overruled by a law, in the limits fixed by the supreme law, the constitution.
How else are Corporations, as people, going to express their views?
Corporations are NOT people.
Exactly, a small fact that was overlooked by SCOTUS.
The definition of a corporation USED to read : “corporations have rights similar to but apart from individual rights”
SCOTUS conveniently overlooked the part; “but apart from”, and ended up with a new law that reads ; “corporations have rights similar to individual rights”.
I could hardly believe it when I read that a few years ago.
So if a CEO runs a company into the ground, is he guilty of murder?