Quote:
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
...the asswhipping LL didn't give me over the NDAA, wherein I proved his analysis was inadequate.
|
cog, I didn't call it an "asswhipping," someone else did .... but ....
Is that why you started a new thread on the topic ..
..... to avoid the reality?
The "problem" with so many of your "chicken little" posts (and threads) is that they are based on journalistic-op-ed articles of someone's interpretation of the language of the Court's opinion using a "headline" mentality .... when there is a "strong" likelihood that a higher Court will toss the offensive language that brings on the claims that the "sky is falling."
As a lawyer (someone posted you are) you have probably heard the statement that "bad facts make bad law." Unfortunately, so many "laws" and "decisions" follow too closely to emotionally charged events and the knee-jerk reactions result in "bad laws."
At the same time some of the "knee-jerk" interpretations of "laws" and "decisions" result in some bad journalism, which results in some erroneous reporting and repeats of the "erroneous reporting" .....
the continuum of changing story in the current event tragedy demonstrates how a clamour for "breaking news" and "scoops" resulted in not only an innocent person being accused of a horrendus crime (or crimes), but the wrong location and numbers of deaths from the horrendus crimes.
I posted myself repeating some apparently wrong information that was being published in the media.
Reading the substance of the Court's opinions and the statutes with the links to associated statutes is helpful in arriving at a learned and well reasoned conclusion regarding the meaning and focus of proposed legislation and passsed legislation. When one adds to that process the time-honored principles of legislative interpretation exercised by Courts frequently, a more accurate result is reached, although probably less inciteful and "newsy"!