Exactly. Our problem is not in rarefied questions of interpretation in cases that most honest people would flip a coin over. Our problem is with cases where most honest people would see the answer as obvious, but which Elitists don't like, because it doesn't advance their policy objectives.
I would take an honest, decent woman's vote on the court any day over an a dishonest elitist who votes wrong reluctantly because they cannot stand the policy implications of an honest vote.
Well said. Obviously you have a higher degree from a top university and stand head and shoulders above the common dirt clods who usually infect this place. Everyone knows you can vote for something before you vote against it. See you around the Vinyard.
Do you know that most of our Founders were "elitist snobs'?
Thirty-five of the fifty-five were lawyers or had studied law. A good number had been to college, a very rare attainment in those days. Most of them were well read in philosophy, history and literature. They knew Latin and French, and sometimes Greek. They established a Republic because they feared direct democracy by an uneducated mob.
They helped make possible a world where those attainments were available to almost anyone with enough intelligence and stamina--BUT THEY NEVER SAID THEY WERE IRRELEVANT.