What is the next issue that will animate the Forum the most?

[t_host1]

  

  The success of the liberal left progression to anarchy; to where, law and the court are of no use, to which, brutal uncivil force ensues with Shakespeare prevailing leaving 101 law looking for work.

 …hmm, nah, that’s not an issue.

 Damn, no problem, what’s a lawyer to do?

 Break the law, known in lawyer speak as creating precedence.  

[t_host1]

 

  The success of the liberal left progression to anarchy; to where, law and the court are of no use, to which, brutal uncivil force ensues with Shakespeare prevailing leaving 101 law looking for work.

 …hmm, nah, that’s not an issue.

 Damn, no problem, what’s a lawyer to do?

 Break the law, known in lawyer speak as creating precedence.  

Translation. You see, with the liberal left enervating the saliency of the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of the mob, Shakespeare's comment about killing all the lawyers will become a reality. They are no longer needed. Oh damn, lawyers never die, they don't even fade away. They are like maggots, you just can't get rid of them. And how will lawyers survive it all?  Well, of course by being the spear carriers for judicial activism, with their common law case law precedents which trash statutory law, making them a functional part of the lawless mob themselves. So it's all good - at least for lawyers.

How did I do?

 Yep, you’re certifiable, so much to look forward too.

 Would it be fair to compare the Forest Gump analogy of life is “like a box of chocolate” and law is that of a “pretzel”?  The beginning and the end are indistinguishable, therefore removing the blind lady and scales to that of a pretzel would be more appropriate prior the anarchy.

[t_host1]

t_host1 is now posting in the Forum Community board and calling Torie light in the loafers!

This thread is a self-fulfilling prophecy!

Mr. King, I wasn't up to speed with your reference until Torie surmised. Unknowingly or not, you have swerved into an equation to which, a claim has merit. Allow me to sleep on it so to proffer a position to our jurist.

 In returning torie, I was half expecting a badger & ag straightening out. yeah, I know, the things I live for. I'll be back.

[t_host1]

 
 Picture this in the form of a question; with the sport of a SCOTUS hearing being the interpretation of the questions that the 9 appointed black robed biases’ do ask - one jurist ask, would a practitioner of law give resistance to its symbol of conscience, the scales held by the blind lady, replaced by, a fat lady wearing rose colored glasses singing while holding a ballpark size pretzel? And, sealing the symbols point of contention, the pretzel is dripping with the conscience of man (the cheese) and for good measure; the pretzel has a large bite with a little dripping of that conscience from the cheek of the fat lady singing.

 Is there an equivalency of conscience for the lifelong practice of law, its dedication and honor, too that of, one man, one woman lifelong honored conscience of marriage?

 Does this qualify as an animated issue? Subjecting the conscience change to law as that of the conscience change of marriage is being subjected to.