Jeff Morgan is from Texas and I've ready his constitutional arguments on Twitter (@JEFFINTEXAS1). He's not a religious freak... He has 11 constitutional arguments and all of them are pretty compelling. Not only doesn't he ask the Court to endorse his religious beliefs, but he turns it around and say that the very question of "insupportability" or "irretrievable breakdown" is a religious / ideological question in nature that the courts (the state) cannot answer. I guess his point is that the no-fault statute doesn't regulate conduct, so what does it regulate? Any legal experts here?
[–]AllGearedUp 12 points13 points14 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Appropriate-Pin2214 6 points7 points8 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]OnlyWest1 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Late-Hat-9144 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Future-Stretch-401 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Former-Dragonfly2226 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Necessary-Worry1923 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]LateralThinker13 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]International-Call76 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PastDifficulty7 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]emilyghetto616 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Glad-Way-637 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SidewaysGiraffe 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BeepBeepYeah7789 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Alternative-Tax7318 -7 points-6 points-5 points (0 children) | Copy Link