The idea of precedent setting by a damn court is stupid. A precedent - whatever the source - should not stand as law. Where does the U.S. Constitution or otherwise lawful enactment by the people allow for precedent to become law?
a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a325b3f5d31.htm
Amen to that. It is stupid that precedent is set whenever stupid decisions like this one are made.
A lazy assed overpaid and unwilling to give up a day on the golf course or other leisure activity, to stay on the job in pursuit of truth and justice and to earn their pay , arguing the law and constitutionality of a case- found it far more simple and less time consuming to just treat past decisions on similar cases, regardless of the un-constitutionality, assinity or screwed up and scewered reason for the decision and personal bias of the judge, as the law of the land.
Precedents represent an attitude among the judiciary that amounts to: "Fu*k the written law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights it rode in on!
Fu*k the law of the land, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, is the litmus test a Judge must pass to be confirmed by democrat Senators such as Hairy Arse Reed, Chris Dodd,Kennedy, Robert Byrd, that idiot from the postage stamp size state Deleware, etc., and RINOs like Snow, McCaine, etc.