I wrote:
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@gmail.com):
With hilarious results (FL, not CA): http://loweringthebar.net/2013/09/lousy-war-on-terror-arguments.html (Thanks to JWZ, from whom I found that blog.)
Florida has for many decades been the idiot child of US states -- too systemically incompetent to achieve the corruption it aspires to.
However, after following links from the blog to the underlying news item (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/04/florida-man-cites-bush-doctrine-after-...) , it turns out that this non-story amounts to 'barrister for the accused in a murder case filed a cheekily outrageous dismissal motion based on a ludicrous theory of law'. That is what defence counsel in murder cases -do-. They are paid to invent and lodge creative and unlikely arguments, because they are obliged to do anything and everything that _might work_. (The dumbassedness and desperation of this argument is only highlighted by the motion's reported citation of 'The Bush Doctrine', which has no conceivable relevance to this or any other trial.) So, no that is not a 'result', Trent. You can talk about results after a judge gets found, even in Florida, who's gullible enough to buy that theory of what 'imminent' means and grant such a motion.