[13 / 1 / 1]
More evidence that Republicans barely understand English, and have problems understanding that words mean.
https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2024/12/ohio-supreme-court-stands-by-asinine-ruling-that-boneless-chicken-wings-do-not-mean-without-bones-the-wake-up-for-tuesday-dec-10-2024.html
The Ohio Supreme Court in July ruled that lower courts were correct to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a man who ate a boneless chicken wing and got a bone stuck in his throat.
“Boneless,” the Republican justices held, describes the “cooking style” of the wings.
“A reasonable consumer could have reasonably anticipated and guarded against the bone at issue in this case,” the majority reasoned.
So he couldn’t make his case to a jury.
The plaintiff asked the court for reconsideration and a ruling announced Monday handed back the same decision — but not without pointed dissent from Democrats and a citation of cleveland.com’s Editorial Board.
Wrote Democratic Justice Michael P. Donnelly: “If the public cannot trust the judiciary to be faithful in small things — like whether ‘boneless’ can reasonably be understood as not including bones — how can the judiciary be trusted with greater things?”
https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2024/12/ohio-supreme-court-stands-by-asinine-ruling-that-boneless-chicken-wings-do-not-mean-without-bones-the-wake-up-for-tuesday-dec-10-2024.html
The Ohio Supreme Court in July ruled that lower courts were correct to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a man who ate a boneless chicken wing and got a bone stuck in his throat.
“Boneless,” the Republican justices held, describes the “cooking style” of the wings.
“A reasonable consumer could have reasonably anticipated and guarded against the bone at issue in this case,” the majority reasoned.
So he couldn’t make his case to a jury.
The plaintiff asked the court for reconsideration and a ruling announced Monday handed back the same decision — but not without pointed dissent from Democrats and a citation of cleveland.com’s Editorial Board.
Wrote Democratic Justice Michael P. Donnelly: “If the public cannot trust the judiciary to be faithful in small things — like whether ‘boneless’ can reasonably be understood as not including bones — how can the judiciary be trusted with greater things?”