“We continue to claim that nobody is supposed to ignore the law. But we must give some credit to those who know it.”

Judges are supposed to know the law, yet they decide cases based on their feelings instead.

I don't know what Joe's comment has to do with the quote... Laws can indeed be wrong and it takes a person of strong will to stand up and say so.

Liz, Joe's comment has everything to do with the quote. The term or concept "law" has 3 very distinct understandings. Ignorance of those definitions means: what you don't know will hurt you. The de jure jurisprudence of law recognized as the original intent was the law of nature or nature's God (natural law). Common law was the natural law application of choice for man's administrations. Natural law describes that which is (i.e., gravity, physics, fiscal law, etc.) At natural law, man uses certain tools such as codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, statutes, etc. to order man's administration of the law that exists eternally (such tools are not law, only ordering definitions). At natural law, corporeal man can not create, make or otherwise alter law. At natural, Constitutional, and de jure law, law enforcement is an oxymoron. Corporeal man can only enforce tyranny.

At "legal positivism" man, as a perceived god can create, alter or otherwise legislate "law". Law, at legal positivism, derives from the carnal man's mind. At legal positivism, codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, statutes, enforcement, etc. are considered law (in and of themselves - carnal man makes laws on many levels) Officially, the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land operates under the despotic delusion of legal positivism with a greater and greater use of "legal positivism" Legal positivism is enforced by carnal man, claiming order while natural law is evident through cause and effect. The quote is framed in unconstitutional legal positivism.

At "legal realism" the god / man officiate can dictate and have enforced anything his feelings desire or by a mere mental whim (by statutory legal positivism or otherwise). Presidential decrees,and judicial activism fall within the realm of legal realism.

Your statement of "Laws can indeed be wrong" is a comment antithetical to the de jure natural law of the States united. Your comment is deeped in legal positivism or legal realism which is contrary to Constitutional law (the laws of nature and of nature's God). Laws at natural law are just what they are, they are neither right or wrong.

Who is this "We" the quote refers to. Nobody I know ignores gravity or physics as they more often than not take such for granted. The god / man's economic rules ignore the law (fiscal law). Such flagrant disregard of natural law manifests in the cause and effect of greater poverty, pain and society's destruction. I also give some credit to those who know the natural law (fiscal and otherwise).

Most judges define the law as whatever they say it is.

Presumption reigns supreme, among some on the bench. It is evident, when holding a conversation with said parties. Old families controlling these positions, dictating policy, condoning or condemning, any threat to their holdings, private or otherwise. Seats of power, manipulated with the greatest of skill and ease. The poorer we get the more they stick out. The greater the threat to their welfare and political affiliations, the more blatant and arrogant their rulings.

Not sure why the thumbs down. It seems to me to be a critique on the volume of laws passed that the majority of the people do not even know have been passed upon them. Just prohibit another act that few ever exercise, then punish the few that do. Most do not defend themselves against arbitrary authority -- easy, just make it illegal to resist 'arrest' even if it is unlawful. People are shot and killed regularly for resisting unlawful acts by police -- the worst that ever seems to happen in that the departments are sued and the tax payer has to pay the damages while the 'authorities' do not get as much as a slap on the wrist.