Difference between revisions of "Talk:Antonin Scalia"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Scalia's opinion of Brown v Education might be relevant) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
: Scalia's opinion of Brown v Education might be relevant, if it were known. As is, mentioning Brown just confuses. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT) | : Scalia's opinion of Brown v Education might be relevant, if it were known. As is, mentioning Brown just confuses. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: Ummm... it's a citation to an established legal principle known as responsivism. Andy, your arrogance (or ignorance?) in ignoring actual legal fact is shocking. Has your worldview really sent your mind spinning that far?-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 02:18, 28 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 06:18, 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)
- Scalia's opinion of Brown v Education might be relevant, if it were known. As is, mentioning Brown just confuses. RSchlafly 01:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- Ummm... it's a citation to an established legal principle known as responsivism. Andy, your arrogance (or ignorance?) in ignoring actual legal fact is shocking. Has your worldview really sent your mind spinning that far?-AmesGyo! 02:18, 28 March 2007 (EDT)