e4fd98b9   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,   
   talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: can.politics   
   From: wy_@myself.com   
      
   On 18 Apr, 15:30, RD Sandman    
   wrote:   
   > wy  wrote innews:35a9d256-c7cd-4423-8463-86cd   
   fed89b0@z4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > > On 18 Apr, 13:57, RD Sandman    
   > > wrote:   
   > >> wy  wrote   
   > >> innews:6a231d9a-f8cf-4f09-9c70-f93846ef42eb@cm   
   > > 2g2000vbb.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 fo   
   > > r   
   > >> > 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?   
   >   
   > Nope.  However, you didn't refute my point.   
      
   If you actually had a point, I'd refute it.  You didn't have one, so   
   no refute.   
      
      
   > >> 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.   
   >   
   > You will have to take that up with them.   
      
   Egads!  But, but, but ... *you're* one of them!  And you don't even   
   know it.  Wow, that's bad.  But expected with a right wingnut.   
      
      
   > >> >> >> > 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 ag   
   > > ain   
   > >> > 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.   
   >   
   > ROFLMAO!!!!   
   >   
   >   You're the   
   >   
   > > one who should try to dispute it if you think it doesn't make any   
   > > sense at all.   
   >   
   > Why?  I really don't give a damn what you think.   
      
   Typical right wingnut response when wanting to avoid proving how   
   little they know in any attempt to dispute something.   
      
      
   >   
   > 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,   
   >   
   > They are since on the Court, the majority rules.  Why do you think that   
   > all presidents want to be in the position of naming candidates for the   
   > Court?  Why do you think that could be a reason why elections are so   
   > important?   
      
   Don't care why.  The whole point is about making objective decisions,   
   not sticking to a flawed system and thinking that true justice   
   actually emanates from it.   
      
      
      
   >   
   >  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.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)