They make *what* for kids!?

[Neo Art]

when the question is about constitutional law relying on the supreme court, the ultimate authority on the subject, is more than reasonable.

you are basically saying we should not listen to doctors about medical matters, or scientists about science.

Socio, there's a difference in this case. When you present scientific evidence, typically you argue why it applies and how it substantiates your argument. You don't just throw sources and pretend as though you've won. Similarly, you don't throw out a Supreme Court case and throw your hands up waiting for applause as though you've won without actually explaining why that piece of evidence is correct and applies.

especially when 4 out of the 9 supreme court members, the appellate court, AND a bunch of federal district court judges think the other way. I mean, it's all well and good to claim "we should listen to the experts" but if you're going ot do that, do it honestly, and recognize that a significant number of experts agree with the other side.

Or are supreme court justices no longer the "authority on the subject" when you disagree with them?

I mean, we've already seen Gallo's "that's a stupid argument, I've never heard THAT one before!" face plant, when it became obvious he didn't realize I was paraphrasing the dissent.

[Hathradic States]

The sad part is, anyone with even a passing familiarity with constitutional law history wouldn't have even asked that question because of the immediately obvious example that springs to the mind of anyone who has ever taken a constitutional law class.

OHHhhh

I think I know what you're talking about now.

As do I. A pity I didn't think of it sooner.

[Cosara]

It upheld certain rights for businesses.

Business's aren't people.

Didn't we have a thread about that like 2 days ago?

[Neo Art]

OHHhhh

I think I know what you're talking about now.

As do I. A pity I didn't think of it sooner.

Doubt it.

[Neo Art]

The sad part is, anyone with even a passing familiarity with constitutional law history wouldn't have even asked that question because of the immediately obvious example that springs to the mind of anyone who has ever taken a constitutional law class.

OHHhhh

I think I know what you're talking about now.

TG me, I'm curious.

[Hathradic States]

Business's aren't people.

Didn't we have a thread about that like 2 days ago?

God, probably. We have that at least once a year or so.

[Neo Art]

So you agree you should listen to doctors about medicine, and scienctists about science? Do you also agree then you should listen to lawyers regarding the law?

Oh yes. Just not the ones I meet on the internet.

Who said anything about on the internet? I'm talking about the significant number of federal judges who agree with me.

[United Dependencies]

As do I. A pity I didn't think of it sooner.

Doubt it.

Oh. I have no idea then.

[Fireye]

I never said it was infallible. Merely that its ruling is law. Because of such, it is not up to pro-gun rights folk to prove their point, but to the anti-gun crowd to prove theirs.

So you're just saying that you're incapable of intelligently defending your position?

You're position is only: "I don't believe anyone should have guns for any reason other than hunting because I'm a Pollyanna who thinks that if it wasn't for all of those pesky guns, we'd all hold hands and sing 'Kumbayah' when we disagree with each other and the world would be a perfect place."

You offer no concrete proof of this either. You've displayed a marked disdain for ANYONE whose view disagrees with yours. You act like your opinion is the ONE TRUE WAY THAT THE WORLD SHOULD FOLLOW!!!!

You're EVERY BIT as much of an extremist as the president of the NRA, except that you believe that there is no way on HEAVEN, HELL & EARTH that you could EVER be, in the SLIGHTEST BIT, a little wrong.

[Meritocratic States]

People might have said this before but I'll say it anyway.

Bad Parenting, they're idiots.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

In your opinion. At least I have my own argument rather than just falling back on "but the supreme court says so!".

when the question is about constitutional law relying on the supreme court, the ultimate authority on the subject, is more than reasonable.

you are basically saying we should not listen to doctors about medical matters, or scientists about science.

I'm saying that in a discussion you should be able to actually defend your position.

[Neo Art]

Doubt it.

Oh. I have no idea then.

You? Maybe. Him? Doubtful. As I said, TG me, I'll let ya know if you're on the right track.

[Mavorpen]

especially when 4 out of the 9 supreme court members, the appellate court, AND a bunch of federal district court judges think the other way. I mean, it's all well and good to claim "we should listen to the experts" but if you're going ot do that, do it honestly, and recognize that a significant number of experts agree with the other side.

Or are supreme court justices no longer the "authority on the subject" when you disagree with them?

I mean, we've already seen Gallo's "that's a stupid argument, I've never heard THAT one before!" face plant, when it became obvious he didn't realize I was paraphrasing the dissent.

Pretty much. Even if you have utterly no desire to change your viewpoint and want to live in a bubble, you still have to understand your opponent's argument. And to do that, you need to actually listen (or comprehend in the context a forum) and have the desire to read opinions of the opposing side.

[Mavorpen]

So you're just saying that you're incapable of intelligently defending your position?

You're position is only: "I don't believe anyone should have guns for any reason other than hunting because I'm a Pollyanna who thinks that if it wasn't for all of those pesky guns, we'd all hold hands and sing 'Kumbayah' when we disagree with each other and the world would be a perfect place."

You offer no concrete proof of this either. You've displayed a marked disdain for ANYONE whose view disagrees with yours. You act like your opinion is the ONE TRUE WAY THAT THE WORLD SHOULD FOLLOW!!!!

You're EVERY BIT as much of an extremist as the president of the NRA, except that you believe that there is no way on HEAVEN, HELL & EARTH that you could EVER be, in the SLIGHTEST BIT, a little wrong.

Poe.

[Hathradic States]

Oh yes. Just not the ones I meet on the internet.

Who said anything about on the internet? I'm talking about the significant number of federal judges who agree with me.

Eh, thought this was going a different direction than it did.

Who are, at this moment, outnumbered and outruled by a majority of lawyers on the Court.

[Neo Art]

Who said anything about on the internet? I'm talking about the significant number of federal judges who agree with me.

Eh, thought this was going a different direction than it did.

Who are, at this moment, outnumbered and outruled by a majority of lawyers on the Court.

For the moment, yes. As I said, Scalia is 77 years old, and based on current trends, I fully anticipate that we hold the white house for at least the next 2 elections. He won't make it to 88 on the bench.

It's just a matter of time.

[AmeriQuew]

Quew
This sounds like poor education in weapon handling, other then that it is just an accident.
The way to have this happen less is to make education on the handling of guns a more common thing not to scream about how Political party X is evil and we should strip people of there rights or something like that...quew.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

So you're just saying that you're incapable of intelligently defending your position?

You're position is only: "I don't believe anyone should have guns for any reason other than hunting because I'm a Pollyanna who thinks that if it wasn't for all of those pesky guns, we'd all hold hands and sing 'Kumbayah' when we disagree with each other and the world would be a perfect place."

You offer no concrete proof of this either. You've displayed a marked disdain for ANYONE whose view disagrees with yours. You act like your opinion is the ONE TRUE WAY THAT THE WORLD SHOULD FOLLOW!!!!

You're EVERY BIT as much of an extremist as the president of the NRA, except that you believe that there is no way on HEAVEN, HELL & EARTH that you could EVER be, in the SLIGHTEST BIT, a little wrong.

Not even close.

[Sociobiology]

when the question is about constitutional law relying on the supreme court, the ultimate authority on the subject, is more than reasonable.

you are basically saying we should not listen to doctors about medical matters, or scientists about science.

Socio, there's a difference in this case. When you present scientific evidence, typically you argue why it applies and how it substantiates your argument. You don't just throw sources and pretend as though you've won.

because I am an authority in several fields of science, in ones I am not especially in a highly technical matter I will use the authority of other scientists.
For instance I will accept what physicists tell me about the implications of the hydrogen and helium balance of the universe, because I don't know enough about the subject.

And with constitutional law the supreme court is not only the supreme authority it is also the final authority on the subject, the document itself lays that out.

during the time African Americans were not considered people, they legally were not people, regardless of how strange or unpleasant that is in retrospect. Law is not like science, there is a final decider.

I am not saying they were doing a good job of presenting it, but because the supreme court says so IS a solid argument in constitutional law.

You may argue about the justness of the law but not what is the law in this case.

[Cosara]

People might have said this before but I'll say it anyway.

Bad Parenting, they're idiots.

Everyone has said that, and everyone agrees.

[Mavorpen]

because I am an authority in several fields of science, in ones I am not especially in a highly technical matter I will use the authority of other scientists.
For instance I will accept what physicists tell me about the implications of the hydrogen and helium balance of the universe, because I don't know enough about the subject.

And with constitutional law the supreme court is not only the supreme authority it is also the final authority on the subject, the document itself lays that out.

We've been over this. No one, absolutely no one has disagreed with this statement.

during the time African Americans were not considered people, they legally were not people, regardless of how strange or unpleasant that is in retrospect. Law is not like science, there is a final decider.

Again, we've already been over this.

[Neo Art]

because I am an authority in several fields of science, in ones I am not especially in a highly technical matter I will use the authority of other scientists.
For instance I will accept what physicists tell me about the implications of the hydrogen and helium balance of the universe, because I don't know enough about the subject.

You realize, I hope, why I find comments like this DEEPLY ironic in threads like these, yes?

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

People might have said this before but I'll say it anyway.

Bad Parenting, they're idiots.

Everyone has said that, and everyone agrees.

It's the only thing we all agree on...

[Mavorpen]

because I am an authority in several fields of science, in ones I am not especially in a highly technical matter I will use the authority of other scientists.
For instance I will accept what physicists tell me about the implications of the hydrogen and helium balance of the universe, because I don't know enough about the subject.

You realize, I hope, why I find comments like this DEEPLY ironic in threads like these, yes?

When you really think about it, his statement allows you to basically argue anything as long as an expert believes it.

Climate Change is bullshit? Of course! Just search for a certified climate scientist who says so and you automatically win!

[Neo Art]

You realize, I hope, why I find comments like this DEEPLY ironic in threads like these, yes?

When you really think about it, his statement allows you to basically argue anything as long as an expert believes it.

Climate Change is bullshit? Of course! Just search for a certified climate scientist who says so and you automatically win!

Beyond that, I haven't had a particularly compelling reason why John Roberts is particularly more of an expert on the subject than I am. He's older, and he's had more experience I suppose, but I don't see necessarily why his views on the constitution are necessarily any better than my own.

he's in the position to better effectuate his views, that's true, but I still don't see why his wisdom is supposedly so much better than mine as a simple de facto matter.