Give up then. The FACT is that the law is what the judge says it is. No law was passed legalizing all abortions, judges did that. Statutes of limitations came up 'cause our anonymous internet deacon claimed that certain lawsuits were going to fail due to that one single factor, a factor about which he is clueless. You abject to my posts with neither fact nor theory, just a claim of knowledge. What was your point?
Give up then. The FACT is that the law is what the judge says it is. No law was passed legalizing all abortions, judges did that. Statutes of limitations came up 'cause our anonymous internet deacon claimed that certain lawsuits were going to fail due to that one single factor, a factor about which he is clueless. You abject to my posts with neither fact nor theory, just a claim of knowledge. What was your point?Actually, I did provide you facts. For instance you claimed Roe V. Wade changed a statute of limitations. This was a fact you alleged that was in error. I corrected you that Roe addressed a mootness issue, and did not address SOLs. Those were two facts, and they were both correct. Even that one you can’t seem to give up. You aren’t willing to learn the difference.
I’ve provided you with legal theory as well, as in the different roles of courts v. legislatures in using SOLs. You just don’t care to listen.
patent +AMDG
I know he doesn't need any help, but you do know that patent is a lawyer, don't you? Passed the bar and everything.