Difference between revisions of "Talk:Antonin Scalia"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(explanation of repeated rollback of AmesG's edit, and locking page) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
This page has to be locked to prevent recurrence of this edit, and vandalism, because this page is now linked on the main page for the 28th.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT) | This page has to be locked to prevent recurrence of this edit, and vandalism, because this page is now linked on the main page for the 28th.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : Andy you didn't meet my challenge. You're dead right, it did overturn Plessy. Good call. But it did so on the basis of an evolving interpretation of the EPC. It addressed social equality, which 19th Century jurisprudence held was not a legitimate judicial goal. You ''know'' I am right, you just don't like the implication. I can recommend a law review if you want.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 01:21, 28 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 05:21, March 28, 2007
Andy, I'm right. The "Living Constitution" idea is the "responsive" modality of interpretation, typified by Brown. How is that wrong? Unless you disagree with Brown.-AmesGyo! 01:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
AmesG repeatedly inserted a reference to Brown v. Board of Ed. in an attempt to justify the liberal "evolving Constitution."
Brown v. Board of Ed. overturned the Supreme Court's own ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson. The citation is simply inappropriate here.
This page has to be locked to prevent recurrence of this edit, and vandalism, because this page is now linked on the main page for the 28th.--Aschlafly 01:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- Andy you didn't meet my challenge. You're dead right, it did overturn Plessy. Good call. But it did so on the basis of an evolving interpretation of the EPC. It addressed social equality, which 19th Century jurisprudence held was not a legitimate judicial goal. You know I am right, you just don't like the implication. I can recommend a law review if you want.-AmesGyo! 01:21, 28 March 2007 (EDT)