You argued THE LAW. Technically you’re right.
If the law were respcted by its custodians and administrators, generally, because that’s the best you can expect of flawed people, I’d agree. But I don’t belive this judge believes in the law any more than Hillary Clinton does, or the deepstate coup plotters do, or the judges who aid and assist illegal invaders in evading the law, or Governors who dismiss the law in aid of illegal invaders, or prosecutors who ignore the law and prosecute according to political belief, or FBI heads who dismiss law to take down a duly elected president, or etc etc etc.
At the point that I, generally, no longer feel protected in the fair, unbiased application of the law I am against peoplw like this judge. Completely. Absolutely. And it is because THEY only will use law AGAINST me. I haven’t looked into this guy but I don’t doubt that he often wipes his ass with the law when he feels like it. One hint is all the fawning praise and awards rained down upon him by all of the usual suspects.
You are arguing like it’s 1965. And, anyway, you’re right. But it isn’t 1965 anymore and people like this judge no longer fear us.
In other words, the rule of law has been replaced by the rule of men. I share your frustration and great concern. I am disgusted by the unequal justice, and how our judiciary legislates, is too political and is unaccountable. CJ ROberts has his head in the sand, and the judiciary has abdicated its role to protect the Consitution in matters related to the FISA court. I could go on and on.
It is my hope we can turn this around by re-establishing and demanding the rule of law. Our freedoms require vigilance and we need to keep pushing back. In the salon case, I am not emotional about it, but it does have the appearance of the rule of law, despite whatever background this judge has. Thanks for your great, candid comments.