"--- I am always grateful for your explanations to me of what the Constitution means, as written and amended to date. Every time you write, I am amazed that I had missed your point in a mere forty years of study, teaching, testifying, and practicing in the Supreme Court.
I look forward to your next ever-so-educational post on the subject. There, does that cover the waterfront? ---"
Your Obedient Servant, J. Armor, Esq.
'It' covers nothing Bob. --- I'm always amazed that you claim to have a "mere forty years of study, teaching, testifying, and practicing in the Supreme Court", yet you can't be bothered to dash off an actual counter to a mere layman's comments.
--- Much less Barnetts arguments, -- a man who actually has argued before the USSC.
I countered your arguments with Scalia's Dissent.
And I countered Scalias dissent with Barnetts argument citing Scalia.
- An argument you cannot refute.
You don't want to believe it, that's your business. But that means two things: 1) you are not a "judicial conservative,"
Silly conclusion. I'll match my conservative chops to yours, -- anyday.
and 2) you are wrong.
Sorry, but you've just made another argument with yourself as the 'authority'.
You give the surface appearance of being reasonable and being able to read with comprehension. But it's all a cover for your "layman's comments" which consist of your chronic misreading of the Constitution.
Another baseless comment. - Hardly the arguments of a man with a "mere forty years of study, teaching, testifying, and practicing in the Supreme Court".
I will exercise more restraint in the future, and not waste time posting to you. "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig."
I posted here to you, commenting on your misconceptions about Scalia's positions. -- No one forced you to reply about flying pigs.
Sorry for annoying you. It won't happen again.
How droll. You haven't annoyed me at all. -- This little exchange has been a pleasure. -- I look forward to commenting on your next misconception.