What I am trying to communicate to you is that I don't think this discussion is going anywhere so I'm not going to continue, but I guess you really are on the spectrum, because you don't seem to be picking up on that.
You keep saying the jury decided the case, and I keep telling you that is a pretense. Once the judge allowed the case to go forward on it's ridiculous premise, the jury decision was already fore ordained. No Jury in the world would resist the emotional arguments that would have been brought to bear.
The decision of law was to allow the Jury to even consider this line of argument, and that was the judge's decision.
... that it had just approved at the polls...
Objection! It is speculation that the public approved this interpretation at the polls. I would think if anyone believed the public would have approved this interpretation, they could have clearly stated it in plain language rather than hiding it in decorative verbiage. That Adams didn't write it out plainly implies he didn't think such plain language would pass muster.
... and judges approving their decision is a different story from a high court "finding" new things in constitution drafted centuries before.
Not that I can see. All I see is that we like one decision, and we dislike the other, even though they were made through the very same creative interpretation of words about freedom for citizens.
What I am trying to communicate to you is that I don't think this discussion is going anywhere so I'm not going to continue, but I guess you really are on the spectrum, because you don't seem to be picking up on that.
I believed that you wouldn't want to even engage on this topic because I can see no possible way that you can reconcile what you want to believe in the one case, with what has happened in the other.
Yes, I "get it" that you don't want to talk about this. I knew you wouldn't want to talk about this before I sent you that first message. If *I* were you, *I* wouldn't want to talk about it either, because I see no possible way to defend your position.
I think though that I have made my point, and so I shall accede to your preference to discontinue discussing this "tale of two articles" with you.
Perhaps someone else will try to defend your position. I would relish that. :)