[KQQL]

Since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in IN 1868, "the U.S. Supreme Court has -- in a long line of decisions -- emphasized what the amendment states, in part: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The high court has been clear that the Fourteenth Amendment protections are "not confined to the protection of citizens," (Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 1886).

[LRS]

I am not certain as to the point you are trying to make. Care to expand?

[LRS]

I will try this again, and ask again, in a gentlemanly manner, Would you, KQQL, care to expand as to the point you were making to me? Perhaps it would help if I were to expand as to why I seem to be in the dark.

I made a specific post dealing with the possibility that the Judge in the case, may be making rulings based upon a personal bias that stems from a childhood incident. In response, I recieve not only a piece dealing with the 14th Amendment, but one that is presented with bold letters.

Had I addressed the case itself, then I could understand your actions, but I am at a loss as to what your reply has to do with the point I made.

(However, I will say that I think the 14th Amendment is being misused, much as FTTZ expresses in Post #107.)