If you went into a courthouse today, and you were listening to a ruling from a judge, if the judge ruled that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe, would you blindly accept his ruling without question?

What if he justified his ruling with a large amount of bureaucratic legalese speak? Would that mean that the Earth is flat? Would you throw away everything you know about science and accept his ruling then?

Of course you wouldn’t. As a rational human being, you would conclude that the judge is an absolute crackpot for making such a ruling, because the ruling is contrary to known science.

If you were a juror, and heard the judge make these crackpot arguments, you would rightfully ignore them.

But, what if judges do this all of the time? What if there isn’t always a jury to stop them from unjustly taking liberty and/or property from the citizens?

Read the rest of this entry »