Web lists-archives.com

Re: King Donald

My bloviated meandering follows what  graced us with on 2/9/2017 12:17 PM:
On 2/9/2017, 3:05:22 PM, Sailfish
<NIXCAPSsailfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My bloviated meandering follows what Disaster Master graced us with on 2/9/2017 11:24 AM:

"There you go again" pontificating YANAL credentials where real lawyers and judges have deemed it otherwise. More succinctly, it is Constitutional until the Supremes rule otherwise.

There are lots of lawyers who want to keep the sheeple in the dark. And
lots of supremes who don't care what the Constitution says, they only
care about their own personal political agenda, and it is obvious in
their writings.

Still, you're argument is that it is unconstitutional and until you can convince a majority of the Supremes to see it Disaster "IANAL" Master way, it will remain constitutional, yes?

Are you saying we should all just blindly accept it when a judge
blatantly ignores the law (rhetorical question, I know most people want
precisely that, because they are afraid or incapable of thinking for

Not at all, there are lots of constitutional decisions that I find were divined from whole cloth, many of the relatively recently but I accept that until they are over-turned, they will remain wrong but constitutional.

Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/lcey2ex
general mailing list