Do you see the unintended irony in his statement, though? To WHAT did she swear allegiance when she took the oath?
Cordially,
I'm just talking about her voluntary surrender of her rights, in exchange for limited privileges granted by the State, along with personal indemnification against being sued for doing harm. That's how it works. No matter what she swore to, the State considers it a voluntary, binding contract. From the point of view of the judge, she's invoking rights she gave away and exchanged for privileges HE has the power to limit solely for the interests of the State and not her. And that's what he's doing, based on the previous SCOTUS ruling on this issue.
Everybody wants indemnification, but few realize what they give up to obtain it. Its the pearl of desire, non-responsibility, that the government holds out like the snake held out the apple in the garden.