OBITER RIVER AND THROUGH THE WOODS: So, let me see if I have this straight: a judge in Alabama is slapped down by his fellow judges for violating the law, while in San Francisco judges refuse to slap down a mayor who is violating the law. And I believe I am right in assuming that the judges in the first case disagree with their offending colleague, whereas the judges in San Francisco think that the mayor is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Now, if I remember right, arent judges supposed to enforce the law whether or not they agree with it? When a judge inserts a personal comment into a decision this insertion is called an obiter dictum; it is there usually to illustrate a point, it is not part of the decision, and it carries no legal significance. I am wonder how long it will be before people begin regarding judicial decisions as just so much personal opinion. The Left in this country will not like that at all; they prefer having judges impose the Left's agenda. It's so much easier than using the democratic process and having to convince the unwashed of the wisdom of their betters.