To: farmer18th
We are a nation of laws, Mr. Pryor, and not of men. And, in this case, Pryor was following the law as dictated by federal court. I personally disagreed with the ruling, but it's ludicrous to get after Pryor for not following the law.
2 posted on
11/11/2003 11:46:01 AM PST by
dirtboy
(New Ben and Jerry's flavor - Howard Dean Swirl - no ice cream, just fruit at bottom)
To: dirtboy
but it's ludicrous to get after Pryor for not following the law.
The Nuremburg defense.
To: dirtboy
..following the law as dictated by federal court. At least you admit that these judges have become dictators.
Lawless dictators at that...
To: dirtboy
but it's ludicrous to get after Pryor for not following the law.
You must have an objection, then, to the Boston Tea Party.
To: dirtboy
Pryor's oath is to uphold the Constitution, not a perverse and utterly unsupported interpretation of the Constitution. It's his duty to obey that Law. Not the "law" decreed by a federal judge acting beyond the scope of his authority.
To: dirtboy
And, in this case, Pryor was following the law as dictated by federal court. I personally disagreed with the ruling, but it's ludicrous to get after Pryor for not following the law.I'm glad that the federal court didn't order Pryor to take off his clothes and quack like a duck, because I guess we're all required to obey a federal court ruling no matter how ridiculous or how legally unfounded that ruling may be.
149 posted on
11/11/2003 1:56:50 PM PST by
usadave
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson