We are in a situation where the courts are divided along ideological lines. In a continuation of yesterday’s post, we see that a judge in Nort Dakota has declared that, since the state constitution was established to ensure life, liberty, and happiness, women have a constitutional right to kill their unborn children, if that is what makes them happy.
So again, why can’t that same logic be used as an excuse to own artillery pieces, kill people that you don’t like, or use LSD while driving down the highway, if that is what makes you happy?
It is my opinion that judges walk into the court room with a preconceived idea as to how they want to decide the case, and then twist the law and the constitution to fit that view.
5 Comments
Jonathan · September 15, 2024 at 8:20 am
I’d respond to that ruling by asking about the right to liberty and happiness for the unborn child… There view and rights are almost completely ignored by Liberals (,and not much acknowledged by anybody).
IcyReaper · September 15, 2024 at 10:52 am
I agree in some ways. BUT this is the new now not what once was with all those pesky limits. So if the new standard is do whatever makes you happy.And we will need an appellate decision on it and if that comes back just fine, then I can deal with that in so many ways. My joy and happiness will resound across the land. The folks on the right need to understand how to play the new game with the new rules. And the new game is no rules so if you play by old rules, YOU WILL LOSE. Once you understand the NEW rules and embrace them, you can win and have happiness…..
Danny · September 15, 2024 at 4:14 pm
There are many – the list is growing – who must walk the thirteen steps to the gallows.
Anonymous · September 15, 2024 at 10:52 pm
> It is my opinion that judges walk into the court room with a preconceived idea as to how they want to decide the case, and then twist the law and the constitution to fit that view.
That opinion is fact. Here is a discussion of that fact by a law professor in 1995:
http://ereserve.library.utah.edu/Annual/SOC/3568/Bench/myth.pdf
TRX · September 16, 2024 at 8:11 am
> It is my opinion that judges walk into the court room with a preconceived idea as to how they want to decide the case, and then twist the law and the constitution to fit that view.
—
Having spent more time in the courtroom than I wanted, I can assure you some judges don’t even bother to hide it.
In some cases, the judge seemed to be both unfamiliar with the case *and* pre-judged the outcome; I suspect some lower-level functionary reviewed the docket, made a decision based on the briefs, and the judge was just rubber-stamping that.