<ot>Hi Tim - I am very confused. Even if the attorney reversed himself, it would mean nothing to the precedent. Remember the situation with Roe vs Wade, as an example, the USSC ruling is the authority, not that original plaintiff, or her subsequent confessional, to be precise! Besides, I think the FLSC cited this as one of the supportive elements. Sec Baker's rebuttal is meaningless to the ruling. I mean, anyone could say USSC ruling on Roe vs Wade, as an example, is wrong. That doesn't expunge it as a major precedent for the abortion right people. Right now, politics and jurisprudence may be intertwined, they are separate issues. Maybe Sec Baker is a good jurist, but we should be skeptical to all sides, not just the side we don't want to hear :)!
As far as the big picture of FLSC is concerned, I think we will know the outcome soon enough
best, Bosco |
