Try thinking for a change rather than popping off with your usual hyper partisan response.
Thanks for proving my point !!Again, while writing a law takes skill, there is little to sugegst those we elect are skilled at doing so. For example, would you argue that Al Franken is likely to know much about writing laws? You start with a faulty premise, and ingore that judges understand LAW. And I suspect many know more about writing them than some in congress do.
Your the one claiming they don't know anything about the ruling or the law, so it's up to you to prove they don't.Can you tell me how many?
Sounds to me like you have ignorant friends. When I lived there, I was very impressed with their knowledge.I live here, and I talk daily to people who voted against them and I have yet to meet one who has read the ruling. They can quote talking head idiots, but not one knows what the ruling said.
Now, I assume some have read it. But I would be shocked if you could prove most did. What do you base your notion on?
By the way, aren't you the one always insisting on proof ? I hardly think that your daily discussions constitutes any type of proof that YOU would accept if the shoe was on the other foot.