Posted on 02/25/2019 6:58:42 AM PST by Sir Napsalot
Are you saying that is another case of victor's vengeance, issued by a biased court under the sway of Lincoln and his minions?
Facts never did much matter to you, did they? Not when what happened differs from what you think should have happened. The fact is that the cabinet approved the Fort Sumter resupply on March 28th.
They were against it before they were for it. Lincoln made it clear that he was going to do it, so his staff fell in line.
Opinion masquerading as fact once again I see.
But you knew that, and you just wanted to waste both of our times making a trivial dig because you've got nothing better to throw.
Pointing out errors is never a waste of time. Sorry if doing so offends you.
Do you have an opinion about Roe v Wade?
See how you take an example of a relatively trivial distinction between whether it was one person who agreed, or two, and turning it into this "facts never did much matter to you, did they?" as if I had said something that is significant and absolutely false.
Here you are attempting to make a little dig about a trivial distinction, because you absolutely cannot address the core point that the majority of Lincoln's cabinet told Lincoln that if he did what he was contemplating, it would cause a horrible war.
And this is after you deceitfully implied that pointing out what they originally said is a lie, because it contradicts what they later said. And you are attempting to use this childish trick to once again dodge the point that they all knew the mission would be resisted, and they warned Lincoln that it would cause a war, and they initially opposed that war.
This is what you do. You keep the discussion focused on utterly stupid trivia, and you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the core point involved. And you keep any discussion with you going in stupid little circles, and just end up wasting everyone's time because you don't have the honesty necessary to lose gracefully.
Opinion masquerading as fact once again I see.
Occam's razor. The bulk of the Cabinet was against it because it would cause a war. After consulting with them further, they decided that they were okay with a war.
They didn't change their opinion about causing a war. The only change was their willingness to start one, which pretty much all of them realized was going to be the result of Lincoln sending his 5 warship and 3 tug boats, (Possibly armed tugboats.) while calling it a "supply" mission.
Pointing out errors is never a waste of time. Sorry if doing so offends you.
Pointing out trivial errors is a waste of everybody's time. If you hadn't spent so much effort disputing whether or not one more person in the entire cabinet was against the mission, you could have admitted that they all knew it would be resisted, and therefore start a war.
Or I should say, you could admit it if you had any interest in being honest rather than simply pretending his actions away.
I'm trying to keep this on topic. Jeffersondem claims that Texas v. White is an example of "victor's justice". Are you claiming that Roe v. Wade is the same? Because one can disagree with the court's conclusions without believing that they were biased or acting under coercion from the President. As jeffersondem, and you, have claimed.
I had not thought of it in that context. I merely wanted to know if you agreed with the decision or not.
I do not. But I also do not believe that the Court issued their ruling under duress. That they were influenced to do so through Presidential pressure or out of some sort of corrupt scheme to justify some action or take retribution on one section of the country. How about you?
The salient point here is that the court is wrong. The reasons for the Supreme Court being wrong may very, but the fact that they can be wrong demonstrates that one of their rulings is not proof that something is correct.
If they were wrong about Plessy v. Ferguson, they can be wrong on all sorts of decisions. Pointing out that they are wrong is not disrespect for the institution of the Judicial branch. It is merely an acknowledgment that often times their rulings are just a matter of politics, not law.
In your opinion.
Pointing out that they are wrong is not disrespect for the institution of the Judicial branch.
Claiming their decision is "victors justice" is, which is what jeffersondem and I disagreed on in the first place.
You are claiming that to point out the court is often wrong is an "opinion"?
I would put it into the category of verified fact, and that based on your acknowledgment that Roe v Wade is wrong.
Claiming their decision is "victors justice" is, which is what jeffersondem and I disagreed on in the first place.
I had not gotten that far down the road on the point to which I wanted you to focus.
First we establish that the Court can be wrong. Then we can discuss how and why they are wrong.
I told you earlier that I had not contemplated the "Victor's Justice" aspect of Roe v Wade, and at the time I hadn't. Now that you've suggested this might have been my motive, it occurs to me that Roe v Wade can be regarded in this light.
Roe v Wade is part of a long series of idiot decisions by the Courts after Roosevelt and Truman had 16 years to stack the courts with Liberal kooks.
So in a manner, Roe v Wade is indeed a consequence of "Victor's Justice." Roosevelt and Truman won, so they got Kook Liberal judges onto all the courts, and we've been living with the consequences of this "Victor's Justice" on all sorts of idiot decisions by the courts ever since, Wickard among them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.