2 ms·
I'd like to pose a serious question to you, which might run the risk of offending you--so fair warning, there. I understand the fact that you believe your opin
by SkittyDog 5y ago
I'd like to pose a serious question to you, which might run the risk of offending you--so fair warning, there.
I understand the fact that you believe your opinion is reasonable... It sounds like you also understand that the world broadly disagrees with you. A federal judge (Kimba Wood, no less!) disagreed with you... Since there was no appeal, I'd gather that the guy couldn't find funds to continue his suit--so his backers seem to have disagreed, too.
Is there a reason why you're more willing to believe in the idea that "All these people, including experienced legal minds, must be wrong", rather than "My own layman's intuition about the law must wrong"?
I'm asking because I genuinely don't understand why you'd want to continue backing your POV in the face of evidence to the contrary. I may have missed something, and I'm curious what your thought process looks like.
- freeopinion 5y agoI know this just drags out the point--sorry for that--but your reasoning is based on a false statement. You reason that "Since there was no appeal...", but in point of fact, there was an appeal. Consider this my pedantic contribution to a discussion about a pedantic case.
- SkittyDog 5y agoYou got me there, yep... So that means a Federal appellate court also disagreed? Not sure what what stage of the appeal process he got to, so I dunno if that strengthens the argument or what.
- billytetrud 5y agoThere's a difference between what is legal and what is right. What is actually legal is muddled in stacks of overriding law and legal precedent that no "reasonable person" could every really know completely. I would bet you that more than 30% of the country wouldn't have seen that and thought "oh that's obviously a joke".