6f65fc66   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,   
   talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: can.politics   
   From: wy_@myself.com   
      
   On 17 Apr, 20:21, "Scout"    
   wrote:   
   > "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.   
      
   I see you couldn't answer the question that gave you the opportunity   
   to prove that it wasn't partisan, so I guess I must be right that it   
   was.  Thanks.  I knew it all along.   
      
      
      
   > >> >  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.   
      
   You're accused of killing someone.  Then you're at court before 9   
   judges. 5 judges are avowed believers in the death penalty, 4 don't   
   care for it much.  You explain your story to counter what are the   
   prosecution's litany of circumstantial evidence against you.  You are   
   actually innocent but are nevertheless found guilty on the weight of   
   the circumstantial evidence, it's been known to happen too many times   
   before to others, this is nothing new.  On a vote of 5-4, the right   
   wingnut side condemns you to death, the other 4 would've wanted to   
   spare your life on a shadow of a doubt and the hope that at a later   
   date you could find acquittal on the basis of new evidence.  Who was   
   making the right decision?  The partisan right wingnuts who fervently   
   believe in the death penalty no matter what, because that's how they   
   distort the meaning of the law, or the partisan left wingers who   
   wanted to spare your life because, to them, the law is a guideline   
   applied accordingly to individual situations, not a one-size-fits-all   
   rule?  Why do I think you'll choose the stupid answer?   
      
   >   
   > 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.....   
      
   If there were 10 judges on the bench equally divided politically, and   
   the vote was 5-5, then it would stand that neither side understands   
   the 2nd amendment because neither is willing to budge beyond their   
   partisan views.  Add a liberal or, better yet, subtract a right   
   wingnut on that court and watch the stalemate take place due to both   
   sides misconstruing the amendment.  If something's going to be   
   understood in the same way, it would have to be on a vote of at least   
   6-3 in a divided court, with at least 2 of that 6 being from the   
   minority half and from the majority being at adds with his side.   
      
      
   >   
   > 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)