I have come to realize...

[Trainer Monkey]

No, it isn't a guess at all. It's empirical evidence based on how many congressional laws each judge struck down. One of us argues using facts and evidence and one of us using stuff some blowhard on the radio told them/fairy stories/guesses.

You say that as if there is only one correct way of interpreting the Constitution. And my friend you are wrong...just like every other argument we've had. There are two ways of interpreting the Constitution #1. As a blueprint for what our government does (ie we are ruled by the Constitution) #2 As a living document that can be tailored to fit our government (ie the Constitution is changed to suit our needs).....and honestly those can be right or wrong depending on the circumstances, the precidents, and how good of a job the lawyers state their cases.


So if you want to blame Thomas and Scalia for their decisions then you had better find those pansy ass liberal lawyers and blame them for doing a fucking horrible job of convincing those guys of their case.

And if you had ever bothered to ask me any of the decisions I would make if given the chance, you'd see I am very open minded and reasonable

Considering how diametrically opposed the view points would be,your chosing to blaim liberal lawyers for getting the rulings out of Thomas and Scalia?
What did they do,hold them down and noogie them until they decided to legislate from the bench?

[Kirkland Laing]

No, it isn't a guess at all. It's empirical evidence based on how many congressional laws each judge struck down. One of us argues using facts and evidence and one of us using stuff some blowhard on the radio told them/fairy stories/guesses.

You say that as if there is only one correct way of interpreting the Constitution. And my friend you are wrong...just like every other argument we've had. There are two ways of interpreting the Constitution #1. As a blueprint for what our government does (ie we are ruled by the Constitution) #2 As a living document that can be tailored to fit our government (ie the Constitution is changed to suit our needs).....and honestly those can be right or wrong depending on the circumstances, the precidents, and how good of a job the lawyers state their cases.


So if you want to blame Thomas and Scalia for their decisions then you had better find those pansy ass liberal lawyers and blame them for doing a fucking horrible job of convincing those guys of their case.

And if you had ever bothered to ask me any of the decisions I would make if given the chance, you'd see I am very open minded and reasonable

And as always after I beat you like a gong on every single thing we argue about you concede the argument by changing the subject -- we're not discussing interpretation of the constitution, we're discussing how many times SC judges strike down congesssional laws, or "legislate from the bench."

[El Kabong]

Considering how diametrically opposed the view points would be,your chosing to blaim liberal lawyers for getting the rulings out of Thomas and Scalia?
What did they do,hold them down and noogie them until they decided to legislate from the bench?

If they had a legal leg to stand on the rulings wouldn't have been made against the liberal lawyers.



Kirkland, I am awaiting the specifics of your argument....there is nothing there you just accuse them of legislating from the bench with nothing backing up your point of view

[Kirkland Laing]

Considering how diametrically opposed the view points would be,your chosing to blaim liberal lawyers for getting the rulings out of Thomas and Scalia?
What did they do,hold them down and noogie them until they decided to legislate from the bench?

If they had a legal leg to stand on the rulings wouldn't have been made against the liberal lawyers.



Kirkland, I am awaiting the specifics of your argument....there is nothing there you just accuse them of legislating from the bench with nothing backing up your point of view

I posted a study of SC decisions showing the judges most likely to strike down congessional laws. What part of it don't you understand?

[El Kabong]

Think long and hard about this Kirkland.....who would be more likely to strike down a new law as "unconstitutional" a person who views the Constitution as a "living thing" or a person who views the Constitution as a "blueprint for our government".

[Kirkland Laing]

Think long and hard about this Kirkland.....who would be more likely to strike down a new law as "unconstitutional" a person who views the Constitution as a "living thing" or a person who views the Constitution as a "blueprint for our government".

I don't have to think about it, the empirical evidence of SC decisions of the current judges shows us exaclty :

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O'Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

[El Kabong]

But the definition of how they view the Constitution would tell you that before even looking at that evidence. It doesn't mean the laws they shot down didn't need to be shot down....and that's the information I am after. What laws specifically did they get rid of that offend you so deeply oh insufferable one.

Also you never show any love for Ronald Reagan yet he put Sandra Day O'Connor on the bench.

[Kirkland Laing]

But the definition of how they view the Constitution would tell you that before even looking at that evidence. It doesn't mean the laws they shot down didn't need to be shot down....and that's the information I am after. What laws specifically did they get rid of that offend you so deeply oh insufferable one.

Also you never show any love for Ronald Reagan yet he put Sandra Day O'Connor on the bench.

It doesn't matter which laws they struck down, it's the fact that they "legislated from the bench" by striking down laws a democratically elected body had passed into law. Whether those laws meet with your or my approval or not is irrelevant, they were passed into law by your democratically elected represenatives.

And Reagan was a traitor who put America on the road to bankrupcy. They should dig him up and charge him with treason.

[El Kabong]

You post was 100% biased bullshit....FACT

[Kirkland Laing]

You post was 100% biased bullshit....FACT

This is coming from the man whose sum total of political and economic knowledge comes from a four hundred pound drug-adicted radio broadcaster.

I'm sure you can find a link to a copy of the study on the .edu homepage of the Yale law professor who wrote it. Why don't you read through it and then point out where you believe he's incorrect.

[El Kabong]

I'm not saying his stats are incorrect (they are just insignificant) I'm saying that just by the way the justices you mentioned view the Constitution then it is not surprising at all that they would be the ones saying we need fewer laws instead of more laws it is by definition the way they view the Constitution but I am wasting my time telling you that you are wrong much less pointing out the fact that that story appeared in the New York Times

[Trainer Monkey]

I'm not saying his stats are incorrect (they are just insignificant) I'm saying that just by the way the justices you mentioned view the Constitution then it is not surprising at all that they would be the ones saying we need fewer laws instead of more laws it is by definition the way they view the Constitution but I am wasting my time telling you that you are wrong much less pointing out the fact that that story appeared in the New York Times

So wha?,It appeared in the New York Times,so did the report of Ernhardts death. Dale return from the grave and win some races I dont know about?

[El Kabong]

So wha?,It appeared in the New York Times,so did the report of Ernhardts death. Dale return from the grave and win some races I dont know about?

So the Times has a slant ont heir stories as most papers do these days.....which is why they are losing money.

But that is beside the point of the stats being insignificant

[Trainer Monkey]

So wha?,It appeared in the New York Times,so did the report of Ernhardts death. Dale return from the grave and win some races I dont know about?

So the Times has a slant ont heir stories as most papers do these days.....which is why they are losing money.

But that is beside the point of the stats being insignificant

Lyle,hate to break it to you,most papers are losing money,they all were behind the curve on the internet,and didnt figure out how to set up their sites to maximize advertising revenue.
If I can get the AP,Reutars,and AFP newswires,all for free,why would I pay to have the same story in newsprint?

[El Kabong]

If those newspapers were still a good product people would still buy them. AP and Rueters still have that distinct lefty slant on things.