6f65fc66   
   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:3cf4b6d8-cd9d-4ee6-be02-f7dd6cfb60f6@x14g2000vba.googlegroups.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.   
      
   Nope, because you didn't show it that it was decided as it was only because   
   of partisanship. Simply asserting it isn't PROOF.   
      
   And I will note you still haven't been able to 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.   
   >   
   > You're accused of killing someone.   
      
   Really? I am?   
      
   Who exactly an I suppose to have killed?   
      
   > 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 really don't understand how SCOTUS works, do you?   
      
   Tell you what, when you can find an ACTUAL case that does what you claim,   
   then we can talk. I'm not interested in your FICTIONAL cases.   
      
      
      
   >> 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,   
      
   Well, there isn't 10. We have 9. Welcome to reality.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Are you suggesting that BOTH sides are wrong about the 2nd Amendment?   
      
   That seems a pretty stupid position for you to assert.   
      
   I will just note you're still lost in your worlds of fantasy which have   
   nothing to do with reality.   
      
   Try again when you return to reality and can talk about ACTUAL cases, and   
   maybe even this specific case and back up your claims.   
      
   To date the only issue I see from you is that you don't approve of the   
   makeup of the Court.   
      
   Well, TOUGH SHIT. When you are elected President of the United States, then   
   you can appoint what candidate you think should be in SCOTUS. Until then,   
   your opinion is only an opinion and you've shown NOTHING to indicate that   
   this ruling was in any way flawed by partisanship.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)