Replies

Unfortunately, it's hard to hold a conversation about a fairly arcane area of a rather arcane profession with somebody whose basic premises are faulty. Kind of like trying to discuss ballistics with somebody who gets their information on firearms from the movies.

Sorry if you feel that I'm dodging the question, but in the words of one of our (local) appellate court judges, talking with you about the law is like trying to nail a jellyfish to the wall. I'm not even sure I understand exactly what you're trying to say. Maybe the fault is on my part - in which case I do apologize for being unable to follow your argument.

Nailing jellyfish to the wall is certainly possible: an relevant.

It involved getting a willing jellyfish (actually, willing or unwilling doesn't matter), a large wall upon which to view the exposed jellyfish internals, externals, and confrontals, a hammer and nails, and a large clear sheet of plexiglass.

One merely squishes the jellyfish (as you have done with the pressure of your arguments) into thin but visible layers (under the scrutiny of the public's eye in clear view), and then nails the plexiglass to the wall (for further examination.).

It is not, however, very pleasant for the jellyfish to be so exposed.

Sorry if you feel that I'm dodging the question, but in the words of one of our (local) appellate court judges, talking with you about the law is like trying to nail a jellyfish to the wall. I'm not even sure I understand exactly what you're trying to say. Maybe the fault is on my part - in which case I do apologize for being unable to follow your argument.

Let me make it as simple as possible for you (although one who has read judicial opinions in 'light of a legal education' should have had no problem with the question the first time)

From post #31 the poster makes the statement..

There is no "Republican" interpretation of the Constitution. Many hold a literal view. Some hold an expansionist view. But both Roberts and Alito hold the literalist view. If you don't see that from their decisions that are a matter of record, you are not paying attention.
Janice Rogers Brown is in the same camp. Justice Thomas is not "the only one on the court."

My question stands. Brown and Thomas are not in the same camp of Roberts or Alito. Brown and Thomas have (more than once I might add) stated in their opinions the concern of the federal government overstepping the rights of the separate and sovereign states. Brown is even on record in a speech as dissenting against the incorporation theory of the 14th Amendment. Considering the stance of Roberts and Alito on more than a few cases (reading their opinions with my 'limited' mind apparently), how can one say those four are in the same camp?* Two of them are true originalists (for the most part) and two are stalwart Republican judges.

*I've emboldened my question so it doesn't slip by as a jellyfish this time...

Please forgive the snide remark and just answer the question. After dealing with the other poster I shouldn't have taken it out on you.