Recent content by JudgeRightly

@Clete

It's the whole thing the left is getting all riled up about lately. Gerrymandering. The left wants to redraw the state districts to give themselves more power. But to do so, they have to have a bunch of districts go deep into the major cities, because that's where the majority of their voting...

What cities? Just because the state is red doesn't mean the city isn't deep blue. Just look at Missouri, for example. The state as a whole is solid red. But Kansas City and St. Louis are blue and run by democrats. In fact, St. Louis hasn't had a republican mayor since the last one left office...

I reject that premise. Where there is no court, there may be no earthly enforcement of the law, but that is not the same thing as no law. A court does not create the law; it has jurisdiction to apply and enforce it. If a man murders someone and escapes prosecution because no competent court can...

I reject that premise. Where there is no court, there may be no earthly enforcement of the law, but that is not the same thing as no law. A court does not create the law; it has jurisdiction to apply and enforce it. If a man murders someone and escapes prosecution because no competent court can...

Just to confirm, this was the woman who threw a pot of boiling water (or at least a pot of water that was on an active stove) at the officer while rebuking them in the name of Jesus? (*checks, confirms this is*) Iirc, that's when they pulled their guns and shot her. I'm surprised they...

Welcome to 2026.

The legal penalty is death. The issue is not the penalty; it is jurisdiction. If the king rapes someone, he is guilty before God, the Constitution, and the Criminal Code, but no superior domestic court has jurisdiction over the final earthly civil authority. That does not mean “no law.” It means...

The king has to be the final earthly civil authority, not "above the law." The king is under the law, whether he likes it or not.

I’ll try to keep things shorter, but I’m also trying to be as clear as possible, because your proposed solution has consequences you have not accounted for, and so far have not addressed. (I'm also really passionate about this topic.) No, I do not admit that. I admit that the king would have...

You are still treating tyranny of an evil king as the only danger. I'm saying there are greater dangers than that. Yes, the king may become a tyrant. Yes, the fact that the king cannot be lawfully removed by another earthly office may result in tyranny. I am not denying that danger. It's even...

But this simply relocates the problem. You say the judiciary would be under the law. So is the king. You say the judiciary would have no power to make new law. Fine. But that does not prevent the judiciary from using the threat of removal to influence the king’s rule. If the king knows that...

I love animals. They're very tasty!

Tu Wong.