Replies

Owens and the dissenters wanted to render a decision based on verbiage which was not included in the statute by the legislators, but rather on how they "felt" about the subject

I'd like to see your quote from Owens' opinion in that case which showed that her dissent was based on how she "felt".

The fact is, it was the majority who added language to the statute that wasn't there. The statute required that the lower court grant the waiver if it finds that the girl has met certain conditions. It did not require the court to grant the waiver if it fails to specifically state that she has not met these conditions. And as Owens stated in her dissent, it goes against judicial precedent to second-guess factual findings of lower courts unless those findings are irreconcilable with the data set forth in the record.

Remember: The mere fact that a judge says that he's engaging in strict constructionism, and accuses his dissenting colleagues of judicial activism, doesn't mean that that's an accurate portrayal of what happened.

"The mere fact that a judge says that he's engaging in strict constructionism>"

I read the opinions.

I do not base my opinions on what people say; I base them on what I read.

The conditions, as they were, were met.

Place the blame where the blame belongs; with the people who wrote a vague law.

Beauseant!