How do you know that? How can you make that statement? You have some direct line to God or to the Founding Fathers?
You give me some condescending line like "there is a true meaning to each of the parts of the Constitution" or "they knew what they were writing" and expect me to sit here and nod my head, going "Yeah, good point"?
You should know me better than that by now. How can you say that a USSC interpretation is "wrong"? Facts, inquest, facts. Not some esoteric 60's-type mumble jumble about "true meaning".
How do you know that? How can you make that statement? You have some direct line to God or to the Founding Fathers?
Did I claim that it's incorrect? All I did was challenge your assumptions that their interpretations are correct, just because. Do you have anything to back that assumption up?
You give me some condescending [?] line like "there is a true meaning to each of the parts of the Constitution" or "they knew what they were writing" and expect me to sit here and nod my head, going "Yeah, good point"?
Well, either that or come up with an actual argument as to why that's wrong. Something beyond, "That's how the courts have ruled", because our whole discussion is centering around whether or not the courts are ruling correctly.
How can you say that a USSC interpretation is "wrong"?
SCOTUS itself has held that its prior opinions are wrong. What I've been trying to get out of you is an answer to why you (apparently) insist that a court opinion is automatically right. In fact, I asked that question of you in regards to a specific case back at #564, which you never responded to. Do you have an answer for it yet?