It’s sprouted too many evil seeds and spawned too many bad decisions. It’s too late.
You mean lIke this?
https://community.hannity.com/t/questions-on-stare-decisis/6714/54?u=dantes
Not surprised you didn’t see this. You don’t read what I say anyway. You’d rather tell me what I think than listen.
That’s not begging the question.
Feel free to have your own stare decisis.
Why does it “appear that way”?
You’re not fooling anyone, if it’s just game playing you want, then don’t answer the question. We see that the real issue is you just don’t like when the SC decisions aren’t what you like. You can put as much lipstick on your pig as you like, but it’s still your pig.
As usual, you go too far and understand too little.
The Supreme Court doesn’t always get it right. Nobody always gets it right, except for Sneaky and WildRose.
Luckily for us, we have judicial review to fix past mistakes.
1 Like
That’s a nice philosophy that you have never lived by. Thanks for stopping by.
What I see is Sneaky has closed mind, his bias gets in his way…and even if the courts turns back that he won’t like the outcome.
Why didn’t you just say that?
Because what he said was on point and far better than what you just said.
Do you believe the SC should determine the constitutionality of laws. Yes or No
Sneaky isn’t terribly open minded, I’m sure he’d tell you that himself. Everyone’s bias gets in the way. It’s helpful to have it pointed out so we can be aware of it.
Feel better now? I’m sure you’ll find some way to twist my words and say this proves I hate coal miners or something stupid.
Been down that road with him before.
The answer is no.
When asked, “Then who gets to decide?” he answered, “We the People.”
When asked for the practical method how “We the People” should decide Constitutional controversies—vote on your phone?—he has never answered.
Apparently, there isn’t a bumper sticker yet that answers that question.
I’ve started to realize that. Part of a throw-back to cons that want to live back in the time of 1790’s…except with indoor plumbing, modern medicine, travel, communication, etc… and most of all…guns.
By ‘‘We the people’’ he really means mob rule. There was an opinion, before the tradition of the SC ruling, that the congress could decide what was constitutional. Sneaky is a throw-back, IMO, to this bunch. Scary, isn’t it?
1 Like
I’ve had this problem with Sneaky before. He doesn’t ever quite follow a thread all the way to the end. It starts off sounding all brave and principled but doesn’t ever go anywhere.
3 Likes
It’s because he can’t believe everybody hasn’t reach the same conclusion he has. 
Agreed, but they did say, if want to change the law, you should go to Congress.
Judicial review fixes past judicial mistakes?
Is ad hominem all you have left? If you don’t like thread, why don’t you just leave?
Yes.
10 ch
