If SCOTUS overrules the lower courts, the judges in the lower courts are still valid judges whose rulings have legality.
No, he is a licensed attorney. In the course of my business I have become a student of the law with years of practical experience in labor, contractual, and business law. I have an interest as well in federal and SCOTUS jurisprudence.
Then why are you so fucking bad at all of it?
Still that doesn’t give you occasion to rule on a judges legitimacy, and what they’ve read or not because you disagree with them.
This judge is not familiar with the 14th Amendment or its history. It grants her or her state no enforcement authority whatsoever. She has zero authority to adjudicate anyone guilty of insurrection who is not before her in court. She has no authority to do so from afar to anyone who has never been charged or convicted of insurrection and who is not a resident within her jurisdiction. To think otherwise is idiocy, but therein explains your intransigence on the matter.
So you concede that a person well affiliated with the law and interpretation of it can be terrible at it. Like a judge, for example.
In America, we have a right to speak our minds on matters of law or politics and make our opinions publicly known, especially when there is a mountain of prima facie evidence to support it.
That sounds pretty clear cut to me.
All you do is "imagine" when there is zero evidence in play. Zero. Your AV indicates half a brain and your thoughts are half-baked as well. So in the interest of informed public discourse, do fuck off.
I didn't concede shit. That's like comparing Hank Aaron with a toddler who once saw a baseball bat.
My av is actually 2 brains but your small mind can't see that, Jack.
Amazingly, one doesn't expect the number of hoops that have to be negotiated to inform the left of a simple truth.
Of course she's familiar with the 14th Amendment. She is a judge and has every authority to rule on a case brought before her court.
So you think judges are infallible in their judgements and behaviors when exercising their positions?
Quit trying to interpret what I'm thinking or typing and just read the fucking words on the screen.
Now apply this logic to your Arizona fraud thread.
What I find interesting is how the leftists around here will bow down and worship the judges and judgements passed down by them, invoking their legal authority without question, so long as it targets someone like Trump they personally hate.
So answer the question: are judges, their behavior, interpretations and their judgements infalliable things not to be questioned?
It's also apparent she hasn't read Section 5 which says:
Of course they are. No one is infallible.
Isn't that on the table to be decided by the Colorado case already?
I get that you disagree with the ruling and have a different interpretation of the Amendment. That means Jack shit to whether she is qualified to rule on a case brought to her court
Yep, that is the ruling I'm referring to. We should see it this week. That is another reason why the Judge in Illinois should have waited before ruling, but it's obvious she wanted the headlines.
Since when has Rightguide ever claimed to be making rulings or claimed to be a judge?
