Your post:
To briefly return to the topic - you are correct, the Supreme Court has never formally ruled on NBC. I was surprised when they passed in Dec 2008, and now I doubt they will ever rule. I’d be happy if they would roll back some of WKA, which IMHO amended the Constitution by court fiat in ignoring the whole ‘under the jurisdiction’ phrase. Of course, it is a safe bet that the ‘wise Latina’ added recently would never vote for that...
Of course, you seem to have problems with reading entire sentences...
That's the problem with being a liar and a troll, you forget the lies you told.
“That’s the problem with being a liar and a troll, you forget the lies you told. “
I forgot nothing, and was accurate in my rebuttal of you. As you NOW note, I wrote:
“I’d be happy if they would roll back some of WKA, which IMHO amended the Constitution by court fiat in ignoring the whole ‘under the jurisdiction’ phrase.”
Hmmm...I want some of WKA rolled back. Why? Because they “amended the Constitution by court fiat”. As everyone knows, a court proclamation cannot amend the Constitution, so an effective amendment by court fiat (”an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, esp. by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it”) needs REPEAL. Rolled back.
In an what sense did they change the Constitution by fiat? “...in ignoring the whole ‘under the jurisdiction’ phrase...”
Thus I said the Court ruled wrongly, and imposed it views arbitrarily rather than IAW the Constitution, and it needs to be revoked by a new ruling consistent with the Constitution.
This lesson in basic English has been brought to you by Mr Rogers. You are welcome! Now if you would only learn that insults are a poor substitute for reason!