If you have to go outside of the law itself to find some justification for invalidating it, you're literally sidestepping the rule of law. The whole point of the "rule of law" is that the laws are considered on their own merit and applied equally across the board. This judge is an enemy agent to the rule of law and instead wants legal principals applied unequally, depending on the human(s) from which it originated.
I think a good judge could highlight the stupidity of this philosophy by invalidating something like the Voting Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that many of the people who voted for it at the time were guilty of saying words like "nigger," thus making the law an obvious tool of racists.
If you have to go outside of the law itself to find some justification for invalidating it, you're literally sidestepping the rule of law. The whole point of the "rule of law" is that the laws are considered on their own merit and applied equally across the board. This judge is an enemy agent to the rule of law and instead wants legal principals applied unequally, depending on the human(s) from which it originated.
I think a good judge could highlight the stupidity of this philosophy by invalidating something like the Voting Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that many of the people who voted for it at the time were guilty of saying words like "nigger," thus making the law an obvious tool of racists.
(post is archived)