I took "quixotic" to be a fairly honest observation that didn't reflect badly at all on the substance or merit of your line of argument. Quixotic has more than one meaning, and I took it in the line of "not realistic, not practical," and reflecting more on the audience than on the presenter.
One can go into federal court, and want to argue to the jury that Miller's indictment was quashed, and that it would have be re-quashed if there had been a finding that a short barrel shotgun had a use in the militia. That is, in fact, what the Miller case says. However, presenting such an argument is quixotic, because the judge will refuse you to present it to a jury.
So too with the issue of natural born citizenship. You and I might be perfectly correct, but it the powers that be refuse to hear, then that's that.
Just because they have the government offices does not make them right.
“I took “quixotic” to be a fairly honest observation that didn’t reflect badly at all on the substance or merit of your line of argument. Quixotic has more than one meaning, and I took it in the line of “not realistic, not practical,” and reflecting more on the audience than on the presenter.”
Indeed. There are a lot of Supreme Court rulings that we know will just go a certain way, whether we approve of them or not.
It may be ‘quixotic’ to try to get Roe v Wade overturned soon, or a Right to Life Constitutional Amendment passed, or change how SCOTUS will treat birthright citizenship wrt illegal aliens, etc. Doesnt mean its a wrong position, but one has to be realistic about outcomes.