2,732
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 25:
Line 25: + +
→[[Responsive interpretation]] and [[Evolving constitution]]
: AmesG, your argument is illogical. It is like saying, "Bush says he is compassionate, compassion underlies tax increases, ergo Bush favors tax increases". It is dishonest for you to attribute views to Scalia that he never said. Maybe you think that they ought to be his views, but you cannot read minds. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:45, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
: AmesG, your argument is illogical. It is like saying, "Bush says he is compassionate, compassion underlies tax increases, ergo Bush favors tax increases". It is dishonest for you to attribute views to Scalia that he never said. Maybe you think that they ought to be his views, but you cannot read minds. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:45, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Look, I don't have to offer a cite for Scalia not liking Brown; that's not what I'm positing. I am proving, well I might add, that Scalia does disagree with the underpinning of the Brown decision as written by Earl Warren. The logic is plain and clear; you can attack each element of the argument, but it's plan 1->2 2->3 ergo 1->3. Transitive property. Bam.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 15:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)