Replies

>>>> ... nobody will be fooled by your transparent evasion.

I've evaded nothing for the simple fact, there's been nothing to evade. For your edification, let's review.

This all started with you asking me, "What's your point?" This was in reference to my statement that the SCOTUS decision in Touby v USA was a unanimous decision that upheld the CSA of 1970. You objected to this SCOTUS decision and said it was "A dubious claim at best since plaintiffs didn't challenge the constitutionality of the CSA as a whole." I see nothing dubious about a 9-0 SCOTUS decision. I suggested to you, if you thought it was a dubious decision, then you should mount a legal challenge and we'll see how far you get.

>>>>You can pretend that this is not "a substantive argument that is worth responding to" ....

And your substantive argument is? You believe that just because the SCOTUS upheld Touby v USA, doesn't mean it wasn't wrongly decided. By linking the decision in Touby v USA with the decision made in Roe v Wade, which by the way was not a unanimous decision, you're trying to show a pattern of bad SCOTUS decisions. There is a distinct difference between Touby v USA and Roe v Wade. As I said, many people from across the political spectrum view Roe v Wade as a bad decision and for good reason. It was a bad decision. Abortion on demand is an abomination.

Touby v USA was a justified decision by the SCOTUS and the CSA of 1970 was a proper use of the Commerce Clause by Congress. It has been upheld many times. Most recently in the SCOTUS case, AG Gonzales v RAICH, of June.6, 2005. In which Justice Scalia wrote a great opinion concurring in the judgment of the majority. Sometimes the SCOTUS gets it right, sometimes the Congress gets it right.

Now, if you have something substantive to add to the debate, lets hear it. Otherwise, this is nothing more the a difference of opinion. If you weren't such a smart aleck in your post at RE:#88, we could have agreed to disagree and left it at that.

Now that you've seemingly abandoned your silly evasion about "Then you take a legal run at it and we'll see how far you get," perhaps we can have the real discussion you claim to want.

You objected to this SCOTUS decision and said it was "A dubious claim at best since plaintiffs didn't challenge the constitutionality of the CSA as a whole."

No, I objected with those words to your mischaracterization of that decision as upholding the CSA, when all it really did was uphold the challenged section.

many people from across the political spectrum view Roe v Wade as a bad decision and for good reason.

Many people view the CSA as an unconstitutional law and for good reason: the Constitution gives the federal government no more than very narrow authority over intrastate transactions (as all pre-FDR courts that ruled on the issue recognized).