Replies

So if you see four people and two dogs, who am I to question it? Maybe you do. Which is why I didn’t ask you.

So you knew how I would answer before you asked?????????/

What you are indicating is that there are basically as many different opinions on everything as there are people. Since everyone is right and wrong at the same time we have anarchy.

The Supreme Court is just as right and wrong as everyone else.

The constitution is just as right and wrong as everyone else and has no correct interpretation because what one person sees everyone else sees completely different.

You have certainly explained how you come up with such wacky interpretations for obvious things like the 2d amendment but in the real world there are certainties and definitive laws that most sane people agree on.

The left is the only place where such wacky ideas take hold because they want to change the world to their view against reality.

Apparently you are solidly on the left or you would not have such bizaar interpretations.

"So you knew how I would answer before you asked?????????/"

Knew? No. Guessed.

And guessed correctly.

"What you are indicating is that there are basically as many different opinions on everything as there are people."

Some are the same.

"Since everyone is right and wrong at the same time we have anarchy."

An opinion is right or wrong? Wait, let me guess. If someone agrees with you, they're right. If they disagree, they're wrong. Meaning you are the source of ultimate truth.

Wow! I never realized that. Given that fact, can you answer a question for me? The 6th amendment mentions a right to a "speedy" trial. What exactly is that timeframe?

"The constitution is just as right and wrong as everyone else and has no correct interpretation because what one person sees everyone else sees completely different."

Because of that, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1803 declared itself the ultimate arbitor of the U.S. Constitution. I suppose you have a better solution? Perhaps "the people" should decide these constitutional issues?

Well, if we can pry them away from Wheel of Fortune for just a minute, maybe they could give us their clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367.

Ya think?