Every post you put up says the exact same thing using slightly different words. You don’t respect judges who disagree with you and you think that the American judiciary is corrupt. I get it. Saying it over and over again becomes tedious.
I find Jeff’s historical research to be informative. The ad hominems and flame wars, I skip over and ignore.
If eligibility challengers didn’t continue to file lawsuits and appeals, I wouldn’t be commenting on the opinions, holdings or the obiter dicta that comes from them.
The Judges are not corrupt, they are incompetent. I don't respect Judges who are wrong, and I most certainly don't respect Judges who base their decisions on "precedent" or personal ideology. For about the thousandth time, the relevant concept is FIRST PRINCIPLES, not "Precedent."
Science and Engineering do not use opinions, they use facts, derived from first principles. In comparison, the entire legal system is a clown circus that would be a comedy if it's results weren't so tragic.
I have pointed out to you over and over again when and how the legal system deviated from first principles, and all you can say to answer this is "Precedent." "Precedent." "Precedent."
Once again, "Precedent" is just the fallacy of tu quoque enshrined as a methodology. Every argument you make derives back to adherence to a confused precedent from one of the most reviled courts in history, yet for those people taught to follow the religion of legal dogma, "precedent" governs their lock step march into farce.
If eligibility challengers didn’t continue to file lawsuits and appeals, I wouldn’t be commenting on the opinions, holdings or the obiter dicta that comes from them.
Neither would you were the legal system competent. You simply defend them because they agree with your preferred outcome. Again, it is a most odd conservative that thinks so highly of the legal system. The rest of us thinks it's just shy of tyranny and toleration of it's excesses should have long ago ceased.
.
.
But please, do go on.... Continue licking the boots of your masters.
"Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion,... "