[philman_36]

That doesn't suggest you've actually read them, and indeed, it's quite clear that you either haven't read them, or don't understand what you posted.
Do you come to that conclusion only because I don't support your interpretation of the ruling?
Isn't what you wrote really just some petty way of trying to insult my intelligence because we disagree?

Sounds like it to me.

Have a nice day.

[FredZarguna]

Clearly, in your pile of virtual clippings you don't have anything from the conservative dissent, and clearly you don't want to talk about that, because the conservative Justices absolutely savage your opinion.

As for the rest: I'll let FReepers judge your intelligence based on your own posts.

[philman_36]

One last thing...
You keep saying "read the dissent". While reading the dissent gives an understanding of how the case could have gone it doesn't change how the case did go.

I would say argue the decision, not the dissent. The dissent isn't "the law of the land". We're stuck with what we've got now until, or if, this decision is ever overturned.