To: FredZarguna
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.
90 posted on
07/01/2012 10:56:12 AM PDT by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: philman_36
I would say argue the decision, not the dissent. Derp? That is what we are doing, arguing the decision. In which case the best arguments against your position have already been advanced by Scalia, Thomas et al.
If you are saying "argue the consequences" of the decision, again, derp? The conservatives on the Court have told you what the consequences are going to be. And they aren't good. They are as bad and far reaching as any decision since Dred Scott.
93 posted on
07/01/2012 11:12:33 AM PDT by
FredZarguna
(When you find yourself arguing against Scalia and Thomas, you AREN'T a conservative.)
To: philman_36
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.
Right you are, because your boy Roberts failed to do his job.
94 posted on
07/01/2012 11:13:57 AM PDT by
867V309
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson