Posted on 06/23/2022 12:41:29 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
Why should it be necessary to challenge them? Shouldn't this decision negate all the others with the same flaw?
Kill the baby riots in 3...2...1...
Thank you.
As of now I have heard or read that both California and New Jersey authorities have stated that the law just ruled unConstitutional will not be enforced. Even New York didn't exactly say that they would continue to enforce the offending law.
Maybe they’ll secede from the Union. Maybe they should be kicked out.
Basing decisions of the constitutionality of a law by using precedent, is called ‘case law’, and, like pepper, should be used sparingly.
It is used waaaay too much in recent times. It’s basically a lazy judge’s way of avoiding the subject at hand by citing ‘case law’ from a hundred or more years...........................
Not arguing with your remark, just adding that my personal definition of “case law” is “the body of published appellate cases.”
Compared with statutory law, constitutions, etc. Certainly there are cases about statutes and constitutions (obviously), but case law also encompases torts, property, contracts, and other subjects that have not much in the way of definite statutory basis.
There are enough precedents in existence that it is trivial for a judge to get any outcome he wants, simply by selected precedent and sometimes misleading about what it stands for. Odds of being overturned are minuscule.
Yep, and that's why they do it!....................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.