Replies

"I totally understand your objection," the judge told Byler. "But you're in violation, and it's not up to me to change the law. It doesn't really matter what I think about any of this."

Our government spends $ millions or billions to make sure that salmon can run upstream even with a dam. The EPA spends money to protect an endangered mosquito or lizard. Why does our government not do the same for people whose religious practices avoid technology? We should show a little respect, give them their own roads so they can practice their beliefs in peace?

Our country someday may take a few steps backward; it would be useful to have people who have skills and know how to survive without technology.

Are you intimating that "law" is not what it is, and that "law" should be flexible, and should take into account judges feelings?

Are ya thinking the judge should've ruled differently (for similiar reasons), or the same for different reasons?

You seem to be equating traffic laws with environmental protection regulations, or the need for the Republic to be self sustaining in the event of a national EMP.

After all, the Constitution is a living document - produced by a bunch of ignorant agrarians - having no clue to today's contemporary issues, the documents nees a bit of tweaking by the judiciary now and then.