Recent content by JudgeRightly

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.

TL;DR: "A removal mechanism controlled by the king cannot restrain him. A removal mechanism not controlled by the king outranks him." Clete, I'm going to answer posts 303 and 307 together, because the removal mechanism in 303 depends on the altered judicial structure in 307. Let me start...

Maybe. But visibility is being assumed here. Under HPT, the early Flood atmosphere would not have been a clear night sky with a convenient view of meteors. The fountains of the great deep would have put enormous amounts of water vapor, spray, cloud, mist, sediment, and debris into the...

Saying it doesn't make it so. As Clete said, appeal to tradition fallacy. James 2 proves Abraham’s faith was demonstrated by his obedience, not that God exhaustively foreknew Abraham’s obedience before Genesis 22. That is not special pleading; Genesis 22 and James 2 fit together just fine...

You can thank the "cash for clunkers" programs for that.

They don't have the callouses of effort to soften the blow.

You're a legalist, Idolater.