Maybe there is value in having someone who sticks their head above the parapet and challenges popular emotive bills. There’s no way of knowing they are right if you’re not allowed to question them.
Trying desperately to defend the indefensible, I imagine he’s latched onto the old legal cliche ‘hard cases make bad law’. It doesn’t follow that unusually extreme cases that point up an obvious absurdity in the law should be deliberately ignored, of course.
Would be nice if they read them first though
Well, yes, that does undermine this defence somewhat.
