As I already implied to you in my first post I don’t believe a ruling is necessary anymore than a ruling is necessary on the meaning of “is”.
Tell me, you’re the Judge in your fictitious Hillary Clinton legal challenge , how do you rule? Please let Jim Robinson know the answer. I’ve wasted enough time feeding you, troll.
I didn’t ask if you thought it was needed. I asked if you would be opposed to having a decision that made certain what you already think is certain. What harm do you see in making sure that it really IS legally certain?
If I was the judge, I don’t know how I would rule. I haven’t researched this issue nearly as much as other things I’m willing to express a public opinion about. At this point I just want to make sure that the rules don’t change in mid-stream for political purposes. I think it is crazy for the courts to refuse to do their job and give us a ruling so we can all know the definition.