d0e7f229   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,   
   talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: can.politics   
   From: wy_@myself.com   
      
   On 18 Apr, 13:57, RD Sandman    
   wrote:   
   > wy  wrote innews:6a231d9a-f8cf-4f09-9c70-f938   
   6ef42eb@cm2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > > On 18 Apr, 12:50, RD Sandman    
   > > wrote:   
   > >> wy  wrote   
   > >> innews:bf21673f-27c1-4bcd-8076-a9a063ce05ae@y1   
   > > 4g2000vbk.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.   
   >   
   > Oh, but it is valid when all four of the liberal contingent voted for it.   
   > Gotcha.....   
      
   This really is going both over your head and under your crotch at the   
   same time, isn't it?   
      
      
   >   
   > 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,   
   >   
   > As they did in both Kelo and Roe v Wade.   
   >   
   >  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.   
   >   
   > UNfortunately for you that decision weighs just the same as if it were 9-   
   > 0 or 7-2.   
      
   Yep, it really does go over your head and under your crotch at the   
   same time.  Basic grade school math really always does seem to be a   
   complicated process for right wingnuts to master in their lifetime.   
      
      
   > >> >> > 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   
   > >> righ   
   > > t?   
   >   
   > > 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?   
   >   
   > Your claim, you provide the answer and the proof.   
      
   I made my statement and it stands on its own common sense.  You're the   
   one who should try to dispute it if you think it doesn't make any   
   sense at all.  But in doing so, then you'd only be validating what I   
   said about you - that you do believe Supreme Court judgments based on   
   subjective partisan voting blocks are just as legitimate, especially   
   in a 5-4 ideologically split court, as those that equally, and more   
   objectively, cross party lines.  Subjective partisan decisions,   
   regardless of left or right, don't make for honest laws.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)