[Common Tator]

It does not get much clearer than the 14th Amendment which states that citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Discriminating to end discrimination is not equal protection.

The Constitution is not worth a warm pitcher of spit. The Supreme Court always rules as it wants to rule no matter what the words on the parchment say.

If leftists control the court they will say the constitution means whatever they want it to mean... no matter what the words in that document mean.

If Conservatives rule the court, they will mostly rule correctly according to the meaning of the document. But if their were No Written Constitution Conservative Justices would still make the same rulings.

Anyone who thinks the words in the Constitution have any bearing on court rulings, has not studied the last 198 years of court decisions.

[Reagan Man]

Many of us know your position on this issue. It so happens, we're in agreement on this one. Yes, the Constitution is whatever a sitting SC says it is, at a certain time. Fine. Thanks for pointing out the obvious, once again.

In the here and now, however, I still want PresBush to nominate the best qualified conservative jurists around. The more conservatives on the high court, the better chance the Constitution will be followed, as originally intented by the Founding Fathers.

>>>Anyone who thinks the words in the Constitution have any bearing on court rulings, has not studied the last 198 years of court decisions.

One problem. I find this remark, somewhat of a contradiction when viewed in the context of your entire statement.

[aristeides]

Anyone who thinks the words in the Constitution have any bearing on court rulings, has not studied the last 198 years of court decisions.

198 years? My view is that the federal courts, while occasionally they made political decisions, were considerably more honest than not until -- oh, say, 1936, and that, in the five years after that, the courts became fundamentally dishonest.