90b5464d   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,   
   talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: can.politics   
   From: wy_@myself.com   
      
   On 18 Apr, 12:50, RD Sandman    
   wrote:   
   > wy  wrote innews:bf21673f-27c1-4bcd-8076-a9a0   
   3ce05ae@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?   
   >   
   > Hmmmmm, wasn't Roe v Wade a 5-4 decision?   
      
   7-2.  Interestingly, it was essentially a right wingnut decision in   
   favor of it, 6 of the 9 Justices were of the right.  5 out of the 7   
   who voted for it were on the right.  And because 2 were Democrats who   
   also voted for it and there was one Democrat and one Republican who   
   were the only two to vote against it, it was also a very rare and of   
   the more objective decisions that the court made without one side   
   totally monopolizing in strictly partian fashion the pro or the con   
   end of the issue.  So the decision, by my definition of what makes for   
   a valid objective decision, is a true valid and objective decision.   
      
      
      
   > How about Kelo?  Do you agree   
   > with both of them?   
      
   5-4.  It's not valid when the 4 that voted against it were all of the   
   same right wingnut stripe.  The point is that it doesn't matter if   
   you're left or right.  As soon as left or right votes one way or   
   another as a solid block, especially when the court is made up as a   
   5-4 split to facilitate such voting blocks, then any decision made as   
   a result of partisan voting blocks is invalid since politics taints   
   what should be objective legal conclusion.   
      
      
   > >> > 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 y   
   > > our   
   > >> own.   
   >   
   > > If the court isn't objective, then the likelihood of being wrong   
   > > follows.   
   >   
   > Objective in your vernacular means think like you.  Did I get that right?   
      
   If seeing that one side, regardless of the side, doesn't dominate as a   
   partisan voting block to always get things their way, then yeah,   
   that's what objective is.  You think it's what?  All about partisan   
   voting blocks?  That's what makes it objective?  How old are you again   
   and you still haven't learned anything?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)