9th Circus does it again

[Travelor]

Liberal logic at its best.

"... The California Supreme Court says state laws cannot be invalidated on the grounds that complying with them is impossible. ..."

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...uit?src=usn_tw

Not to mention that the MSN is clueless about what they are reporting ( "The Latest: California Justices Toss Bullet Stamping Suit" ). The lawsuit has nothing to do with stamping bullets.

You might want to take your argument up with God - The Ten Commandments were given knowing that men couldn't keep the (ie - "impossible to comply"). "There is none righteous; no, not one." While I certainly don't agree with 99.9% of the politics and liberal law issues of California, this ruling is not unique to California (and the liberals) and has been the position of many jurisdictions for many years. The "impossible to comply with" defense has been used in many instances when litigants don't want to expend the effort or time or money to comply. Think about all the times emission standards have been fought based on the "impossible to comply" defense, yet somehow it manages to get done. So the concept itself is not necessarily bad, but it may be an "impossible" situation in this case. Don't know, just saying.

[deacon]

which of the !) commandments were impossible to comply with?

[Travelor]

which of the !) commandments were impossible to comply with?

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...
I John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
I John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law...…

Just look within.

Guess we're getting a bit off the original post, so I will just stop here. Not demeaning or challenging anyone: I don't answer for anyone, and they don't answer for me.
Hope all have a great 4th of July as we remember the birth of this wonderful free nation. May it ever remain so.

[tenxxx]

You might want to take your argument up with God - The Ten Commandments were given knowing that men couldn't keep the (ie - "impossible to comply"). "There is none righteous; no, not one." While I certainly don't agree with 99.9% of the politics and liberal law issues of California, this ruling is not unique to California (and the liberals) and has been the position of many jurisdictions for many years. The "impossible to comply with" defense has been used in many instances when litigants don't want to expend the effort or time or money to comply. Think about all the times emission standards have been fought based on the "impossible to comply" defense, yet somehow it manages to get done. So the concept itself is not necessarily bad, but it may be an "impossible" situation in this case. Don't know, just saying.

Having free will, it is impossible for me to comply with any of them.