Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
It seems to mean that only those who agree with the pundits claiming that Cote ruled incorrectly/inappropriately could possibly have an opinion based on "legality." 
But the fact is: pretty-much everyone's opinions in this thread about the "legalities" of it all, are based on someone else's opinions of the legalities of it all. And it's quite natural that those "expert" opinions which happen to coincide with our own preconceived notions would seem more objective and factual to us. It's called confirmation bias.
Choosing to believe an expert's opinion on a subject we have no real expertise in ourselves does not lend our opinions any more credence. It just means we found an expert whose opinion coincides with our own. **NEWSFLASH** Everyone has! There are also legal experts who believe Cote's decision was legally sound. Doesn't make the laymen's opinions who agree with those experts any more or less based in "legality" than those laymen who trust the opinions of experts who believe otherwise. |
Even legality is nothing more than someone in a position of authority's opinion.
The law is almost a controversial as the Bible or The Donald.