Do you want to comment on the OP?nefarious101 » 05 Jun 2023, 8:54 pm » wrote: ↑ why are you sitting around thinking about some stranger's butthole in an internet political forum? I take it that's your way of starting a conversation with someone you don't know?
can you believe this guy?^^
Oh yeahnefarious101 » 05 Jun 2023, 9:39 pm » wrote: ↑ your mind is rather "malleable" for lack of a better word...notice how I changed the tone of your ******* post?
I've just given a good example of how to make a progressive idiocrat who thinks he's intelligent look stupid by taking his words and twisting them back on his own ******* with great results. All the while he remained clueless to it...until he reads this...then he will realize just how much of a ******* he really is.
Do you have a point to make other than saying "Conservative Judges Bad"?Prospero » 05 Jun 2023, 5:37 pm » wrote: ↑ Lawrence Tribe, a constitutional scholar, gives the precise reason why current crop of Federalist Society approved conservative justices are incompetent.
Well, he doesn't call them that, but I do.
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/09/ ... -religion/
The only thing the Court says about it in Dobbs is that “the abortion right” is not itself “founded…in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people.” But that is a wholly irrelevant observation and confuses the category of “rights” with the category of rules about how to read a text dealing with rights. Nobody has ever seriously claimed that the “abortion right,” or indeed any substantive right, could possibly be “founded” in a rule about how to read the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment is not the “foundation” of any group of rights but a directive about how constitutional decisions about rights are to be made. Searching for rights in it is akin to searching for actual pieces of lumber in a manual on how to build a house.
Prospero » 06 Jun 2023, 1:46 am » wrote: ↑ Oh yeah
You're a legend in your own mind. You are really full of yourself. Well, I'm sorry I have to pop your little bubble. .
But, you're a phony. I"ve seen your type, ad nauseum, for years in forums such as this. Every forum has trolls, and you're one of them.
See, the thing is, you aren't here for any serious discussion, discourse, or debate. You just want to trade insults and impress friends and get a rise out of people.
And then you pat your self on the back and claim you've achieved some pathetic thing which, in fact, all you've done is reveal who you are.
A troll.
Sorry, I do not engage with trolls.
Off to ignore land you go.
And, FYI, you're wasting your time insulting me. Sticks and stones, etc.
Murder isn't a right.Prospero » 05 Jun 2023, 6:10 pm » wrote: ↑ So, you are saying that only states can legislate on rights not mentioned in the Constitution? No, I don't think that is quite right.
Rights are not legislated powers, they are inherent.
Here's something interesting....Prospero » 05 Jun 2023, 5:37 pm » wrote: ↑ Lawrence Tribe, a constitutional scholar, gives the precise reason why current crop of Federalist Society approved conservative justices are incompetent.
Well, he doesn't call them that, but I do.
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/09/ ... -religion/
The only thing the Court says about it in Dobbs is that “the abortion right” is not itself “founded…in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people.” But that is a wholly irrelevant observation and confuses the category of “rights” with the category of rules about how to read a text dealing with rights. Nobody has ever seriously claimed that the “abortion right,” or indeed any substantive right, could possibly be “founded” in a rule about how to read the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment is not the “foundation” of any group of rights but a directive about how constitutional decisions about rights are to be made. Searching for rights in it is akin to searching for actual pieces of lumber in a manual on how to build a house.