3511fe2e   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,   
   talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: can.politics   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "wy"  wrote in message   
   news:bf21673f-27c1-4bcd-8076-a9a063ce05ae@y14g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...   
   > On 16 Apr, 22:37, "Scout"    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >> >> If you don't wish to discuss it and consider the other side of the   
   >> >> argument, that is your choice.  However, the Supreme Court has ruled,   
   >> >> and, IMHO, gotten it right.   
   >>   
   >> > Well, of course it's gotten it right for you because you're a right   
   >> > wingnut who's totally satisfied by a razor-thin partisan win of 5-4.   
   >>   
   >> Oh, I'm sure he would have been happier with a 9-0 win, but in any event   
   >> is   
   >> was a win.   
   >>   
   >> > But a partisan ruling in and of itself is not a valid ruling.   
   >>   
   >> Sure, but can you show us it was a partisan ruling in and of itself?   
   >>   
   >> I don't think you can.   
   >   
   > Hmm.  5 right wingnut judges vote one way and 4 left wingers vote the   
   > other way.  How is that not partisan?   
      
   So you can't show the ruling was partisan in and of itself.   
      
   >> >  If the   
   >> > same make up of the court of 5 conservatives and 4 liberals had 2   
   >> > liberals and 3 conservatives voting in favor for the same 5-4 result,   
   >> > then that could be viewed as a more objective opinion because it'd be   
   >> > based on a certain common ground agreed upon by both sides, it would   
   >> > cross the spectrum of views and not be restricted to just one view.   
   >>   
   >> I see....so your complaint isn't that they got it wrong.   
   >>   
   >> Your complaint is that you don't view the court as being objective.   
   >>   
   >> Well, I can't help you with how you view the world. For that, you're on   
   >> your   
   >> own.   
   >   
   > If the court isn't objective, then the likelihood of being wrong   
   > follows.   
      
   Ah, but simply saying there is a likelihood neither establishes that there   
   is, or that it occurred in this case.   
      
   So....still looks like your only complaint is the matter of how you view it.   
      
      
   >> > There is no common ground in how the SC has ruled on gun issues,   
   >> > especially with the right dominating the bench, if only by 1 vote, and   
   >> > voting in unison on it.   
   >>   
   >> I agree, we need to get rid of those 4 on the Supreme Court that don't   
   >> seem   
   >> to understand what the 2nd Amendment means.   
   >   
   > Proving my point of partisanship, especially when you side with the   
   > other 5 on a partisan basis.   
      
   No, 4 Justices clearly don't understand the 2nd Amendment. It's meaning,   
   intent and history.   
      
   You tell us that a 5-4 vote on this issue wasn't right and it should have   
   been far more one sided.....   
      
   I agreed.   
      
   Now you want to bitch that I'm being partisan, but YOU were the one that   
   suggested we do this.   
      
   First you bitch that the vote was too even....now you're complaining that we   
   shouldn't make the vote more one sided by replacing Justices that couldn't   
   understand the 2nd Amendment.   
      
   You need to make up your mind what it is you want.   
      
   >> So when can we expect to hear you call for their impeachment?   
   >   
      
   Silence noted.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)