[cardcrimson]

Fair point, and I was worried that we would veer in that direction when I posted it.

On the other hand, is it still "political" when you ridicule a passage in the opinion whose conclusion you ultimately agree with as a matter of law?  I think any good lawyer should be able to identify strained lines of reasoning, regardless of who appointed the judges who made them.

BC

Lawyers and strained lines of reasoning?!? That's their job, sadly. Common sense rarely prevails anymore. Pushing a lawsuit to the Federal Court of Appeals because a coach treated you like crap, perhaps with the intent of making you a better player? Wow. If there ever was a case for tort reform. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Fair point, and I was worried that we would veer in that direction when I posted it.

On the other hand, is it still "political" when you ridicule a passage in the opinion whose conclusion you ultimately agree with as a matter of law?  I think any good lawyer should be able to identify strained lines of reasoning, regardless of who appointed the judges who made them.

BC

Lawyers and strained lines of reasoning?!? That's their job, sadly. Common sense rarely prevails anymore. Pushing a lawsuit to the Federal Court of Appeals because a coach treated you like crap, perhaps with the intent of making you a better player? Wow. If there ever was a case for tort reform. . . .