Page 1 of 1
Bob missed this one
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:19 pm
by BackInTex
Re: Bob missed this one
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:52 pm
by Bob78164
I hadn’t seen it. It’s clear that the Fifth Circuit panel is bending over backward to give weight to a fraudulent video. Calling their reasoning “novel” is far too charitable. It’s a very clear case of judicial activism in an opinion written by a judge who’s auditioning as an anti-choice candidate for the next Supreme Court vacancy. I hope they seek
en banc review. —Bob
Re: Bob missed this one
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:20 pm
by flockofseagulls104
Bob78164 wrote:I hadn’t seen it. It’s clear that the Fifth Circuit panel is bending over backward to give weight to a fraudulent video. Calling their reasoning “novel” is far too charitable. It’s a very clear case of judicial activism in an opinion written by a judge who’s auditioning as an anti-choice candidate for the next Supreme Court vacancy. I hope they seek
en banc review. —Bob
judicial activism in an opinion written by a judge who’s auditioning as an anti-choice candidate
At least she actually viewed it instead of dismissing it sight unseen as fraudulent. (like you apparently have, ethical sir. What evidence do you have, other than opinion, that it is in any way fraudulent?) Justice is pictured with a blindfold. That doesn't mean being blind to evidence.
Not that I care either way, but people on that side of the issue prefer to be labeled pro-life, not anti-choice. Your choice of words betrays your animus and prejudice. God help us if you ever somehow become a judge. I suspect you would be below average in a judicial role. But there are many above-average, ethical people like you who somehow become judges and believe they rule instead of interpret. Then they get to wield power to enforce their innate moral superiority. ON BOTH SIDES.
Re: Bob missed this one
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:32 am
by Bob78164
flockofseagulls104 wrote:Bob78164 wrote:I hadn’t seen it. It’s clear that the Fifth Circuit panel is bending over backward to give weight to a fraudulent video. Calling their reasoning “novel” is far too charitable. It’s a very clear case of judicial activism in an opinion written by a judge who’s auditioning as an anti-choice candidate for the next Supreme Court vacancy. I hope they seek
en banc review. —Bob
judicial activism in an opinion written by a judge who’s auditioning as an anti-choice candidate
At least he actually viewed it instead of dismissing it sight unseen as fraudulent. (like you apparently have, ethical sir. What evidence do you have, other than opinion, that it is in any way fraudulent?) Justice is pictured with a blindfold. That doesn't mean being blind to evidence.
Not that I care either way, but people on that side of the issue prefer to be labeled pro-life, not anti-choice. Your choice of words betrays your animus and prejudice. God help us if you ever somehow become a judge. I suspect you would be below average in a judicial role. But there are many above-average, ethical people like you who somehow become judges and believe they rule instead of interpret. Then they get to wield power to enforce their innate moral superiority. ON BOTH SIDES.
They prefer to call themselves pro-life because it falsely suggests that their opponents are anti-life. Just like Jerry Falwell's group liked to be called the "Moral Majority" to suggest that their opponents were immoral and in the minority, when neither was true. The description "anti-choice" is both accurate and precise and I will continue to use it.
The evidence I have that it's fraudulent is the multiple findings by trial judges, including the trial judge in this case, that it's fraudulent.
And when you say "[a]t least he actually viewed it," if you're referring to Judge Jones, who wrote the opinion for the Fifth Circuit, she's a woman. --Bob