Thursday, March 23, 2006
Liberals decree that "A man's home is his castle"...
...how odd is that? I don't really disagree with the majority in this case, but their reasoning is at the very least baffling. In the humble opinion of lower court "judge" RW-(the original) co-equal rights should exist so if the parties are split in their consent the government has to back off. The laughable doctrine of "a mans home is his castle" to decide this case is classic.
Can you imagine the outrage if the conservative wing of the court had said you must defer to the man's wishes? I am a man and a conservative, but this one has me grabbing my sides laughing.
Can you imagine the outrage if the conservative wing of the court had said you must defer to the man's wishes? I am a man and a conservative, but this one has me grabbing my sides laughing.
