2,732
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 46:
Line 46: + +
→Andy...?!
: Judge Jones' opinion is nothing more than an opinion. It is not a fact. There was no judgment on the issue you cite here; there was no appeal allowed; and the opinion is not neutral. Do not waste any more of my time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
: Judge Jones' opinion is nothing more than an opinion. It is not a fact. There was no judgment on the issue you cite here; there was no appeal allowed; and the opinion is not neutral. Do not waste any more of my time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Whether or not it was "neutral" is not at issue - it's what a judge said, and that's how I described it in the article. Do you need directions to my refutations of ''your'' arguments? They're in your archives, #16, when you choose to answer them. I realize you don't like this case, and that you don't like a lot of case law in America at the moment (Goodridge, hint hint?) but that doesn't mean it's not ''legal fact'' with binding authority, in the first case we clashed over, or a Republican judge's reasoned decision, in the last one. You can't make facts go away by shouting "Bias!"-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 01:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)