I have come to realize...

[Kirkland Laing]

OK how about this....which specific rulings did Alito and Thomas make that were "legislating from the bench"?

Let's not drag Benito Alito into this. I don't know the specific rulings, but I'll bet you a dollar that they favoured members of the Enron and Taliban wings of the GOP.

[El Kabong]

Let's not drag Benito Alito into this. I don't know the specific rulings, but I'll bet you a dollar that they favoured members of the Enron and Taliban wings of the GOP.

....Well then upon reading that your claim that Scalia and Thomas legislate from the bench is just a guess and arguments aren't won on such guesses oh insufferable one

[Kirkland Laing]

Let's not drag Benito Alito into this. I don't know the specific rulings, but I'll bet you a dollar that they favoured members of the Enron and Taliban wings of the GOP.

....Well then upon reading that your claim that Scalia and Thomas legislate from the bench is just a guess and arguments aren't won on such guesses oh insufferable one

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.

[Andre]

Ahahahaha I just stuck my head in to see where this had gone to.

Its like popping back to the pub a few months later and theres two guys still sitting on the same stools having the same argument .

[El Kabong]

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

[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?

[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?

[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."