yeah, i figured i would get some replies over the use of ‘noble,’ which, if edit were available, I would have changed once I read the posted reply.
Should read “looked for the most pragmatic way to bow out.’”
more accurate?
>>>Should read “looked for the most pragmatic way to bow out.’”... more accurate?
I understand your original point, but it doesn’t change my view of the judge.
I don’t see very much difference in the terminology.
I listened to Berg on Savage Nation. His position didn’t sound fringe or meaningless to me.
Is that what our justice system is about?... finding the most pragmatic way of passing the buck?
Our court system is OVERLOADED because lower courts dont have the BALLS to live up to their oath of defending the constitution! Consider all of the valid appeals to SCOTUS that will never see the light of day because lower court judges are either YELLOW or CORRUPT!
Pragmatic? isn’t that kind of like calling a gaff a rhetorical flourish? (not to insult)
Oh... and another thing to consider...
One of the court system’s favorite ways to dodge an issue is to use “precedence”. Judges will simply rely upon previous rulings (right or wrong) to dismiss a case or to repeat the same bad judgment over and over again based upon their biased leanings. In doing so, they point their finger of blame at another judge like you might point your finger at the dog after passing gas.
This judge went beyond his duty to rule in this case.
He set a NEW precedence by claiming that a citizen does not have “standing” in POTUS. If the SCOTUS refuses to hear this appeal, This lower court judge has just set one of the most dangerous precedences in our nations history.
Future cases involving challenges to an elected official will be dismissed as a result of this one.