Archer77 Wrote:
Oct 04, 2013 12:46 PM
I always thought that if the law was going to be " stretched " in making this S/C decision, it would be against O/C because it is so fundamentally unfair as written ( and one can imagine how badly it would be implemented ). The fact that the court went the other way and basically did back-flips with the law to make some sense of their position was truly outrageous. This is one time that the phrase " it's the law of the land " needs to be challenged and explained by the opponents of O/C.