Except, there's this whole public thread where you just keep saying wrong stuff and then moving on to something else, only for that to be proven wrong too.
I mean, you realize this is all public for anyone to read, right?
I mean, you realize this is all public for anyone to read, right?
Comments
1. I still see it as a conflict of interest. That's my opinion (and I disagree with statutes that say CoI must be financial).
2. I believe our judiciary should be held to the highest standard.
People are welcome to disagree, but neither of those points have been proven wrong.
It is indisputable you've made a series of wrong claims.
And instead of address what is being writtten, you just keep repeating things like you're on a script.
Maybe you could define...the Highest Standard. So flawless rulings? No chance for error? What if that can't be done. How do we proceed?
Judges must be impartial, and imo, each case should be handled by judges most fit to oversee each case, and not just assigned at random.
The sheer stupidity needed to hold those two thoughts at the same time is staggering...
And if not flawnessness what is your "Highest standard" what's the goal. How do you know we aren't there now?