Priscilla Owen

[opebo]

No actually, they rather clearly stated their intent. Perhaps you've heard of the federalist papers?

No.  They aren't part of the Constitution.

They are writings on the proper construction of the Constitution.

Who says?  It is all a matter of perspective and subjective interpretation. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What a bunch of bullsh**t. Conservative activist rulings like Santa Clara county vs. Southern Pacific happen all the time.

You're a lawyer?

Umm, no, but it's obviously an activist ruling. The constitution says nothing about the rights of corporations.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's a recent activist conservative judge ruling.

Judge rules that parents can't teach Pagan beliefs to their children.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481

[ATFFL]

What a bunch of bullsh**t. Conservative activist rulings like Santa Clara county vs. Southern Pacific happen all the time.

If they happen all the time why do you always cite the one?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What a bunch of bullsh**t. Conservative activist rulings like Santa Clara county vs. Southern Pacific happen all the time.

If they happen all the time why do you always cite the one?

Because that was a particularly bad one. Now if you had read all the posts in this thread, you'd see I mentioned a very recent one. However, that would be too much to expect from you.

[A18]

No actually, they rather clearly stated their intent. Perhaps you've heard of the federalist papers?

No.  They aren't part of the Constitution.

They are writings on the proper construction of the Constitution.

Who says?  It is all a matter of perspective and subjective interpretation. 

WTF? What they intended is in those papers, Senate debates, House debates, Madison's notes, etc.

I SAID:  The U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to the intent of those who composed and adopted it.

YOU SAID: In other words what you imagine that intent to be.

I respond by pointing out that their intent is right there. It's not my imagination, it's part of historical record. Period.

[opebo]

No actually, they rather clearly stated their intent. Perhaps you've heard of the federalist papers?

No.  They aren't part of the Constitution.

They are writings on the proper construction of the Constitution.

Who says?  It is all a matter of perspective and subjective interpretation. 

WTF? What they intended is in those papers, Senate debates, House debates, Madison's notes, etc.

I SAID:  The U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to the intent of those who composed and adopted it.

YOU SAID: In other words what you imagine that intent to be.

I respond by pointing out that their intent is right there. It's not my imagination, it's part of historical record. Period.

No, you are reading the 'historical record', and therefore interpreting it.  Just a matter of subjective perspective.

[ATFFL]

What a bunch of bullsh**t. Conservative activist rulings like Santa Clara county vs. Southern Pacific happen all the time.

If they happen all the time why do you always cite the one?

Because that was a particularly bad one. Now if you had read all the posts in this thread, you'd see I mentioned a very recent one. However, that would be too much to expect from you.

Oh joy.  I am being insulted by the local Stalinist.

Why don;t you go screw up some statistics or misread an article.  Stick to your strengths.