Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky  heh |
ok... let's go Aaron
why is the legal theory that underlies the opinions of Breyer and Ginsberg (which has adopted the "evolving standards of decency" standard) superior to those (insert striong og commiekos slanderous adjectives here) supierior to the Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Scalia strict adherence to strict constructionsism?
I'd posit that when one relies on the text of the constitution one is doing one's job as a Justice. I'd posit further that when one relies on their standard of decency they've usurped a legislative role and abandonded a duty to interpret and apply law.
What do you think?
btw - do you think this drivel has any merit? If so lwet me know so I can point out how stupid the comment is.... sentence by sentence. It doesn't even rise to the level of decent satire Aaron... it rises to the level of pubescent propaganda and i know you're smarter than that.
Quote:
| On the wild chance that anyone really needed more or better reasons to vote for Obama, there you go. If McCain wins, odds are the next set of Supreme Court Justices will be chosen by an ultra-conservative American cleric leading a Neo-Reconstructionist movement in which public schools are blasphemous, and over zealous followers pray their hearts out for the violent end of the world every day -- just what every nuclear superpower needs. Forget about reproductive choices, science education, or equal rights. Ignorance and illiteracy breeds true. A decade or two under the purview of neo-clown winger judges groomed by the likes of Robert Bork or Roy Moore, and many of tomorrow's young women could end up in prearranged sexual servitude alternating between serial pregnancies and being locked in a menstrual shed. |