Poor stupid James wrote: > If you are making claims about > what the law might become in > future, your qualifications for > undestanding laws and court > precedents are irrelevant. No James, as any first year law student could tell you, they way one makes educated assessments about how laws may be interpreted in the future are NECESSARILY based on understanding laws and court precedents. You cannot identify a trend without examining history. This is not a touch concept; there is an almost exact analogy in studying mutations in diseases. (Insert Santayana quote here.) Are you just dull or simply afraid to back down when you are wrong? S a n d y
- RE: WHERE'S DILDO (AND FRIENDS)? was: Spol... Sandy Sandfort
- RE: Spoliation cites Petro
- RE: Spoliation cites jamesd
- RE: Spoliation cites Aimee Farr
- RE: Spoliation cites Jim Choate
- RE: Spoliation cites Sandy Sandfort
- RE: Spoliation cites Aimee Farr
- RE: Spoliation cites jamesd
- RE: Spoliation cites Sandy Sandfort
- RE: Spoliation cites jamesd
- RE: Spoliation cites Sandy Sandfort
- RE: Spoliation cites jamesd
- JIM DONALD IS A CANARYPUNK, was: ... Sandy Sandfort
- Sandfort is still an idiot (Was: ... measl
- RE: Sandfort is still an idiot (W... Sandy Sandfort
- Re: JIM DONALD IS A CANARYPUNK, w... jamesd
- Re: Spoliation cites Jim Choate
- Re: Spoliation cites jamesd