Difference between revisions of "Talk:Substantive due process"
From Conservapedia
(→Loving v Virginia: Then describe the SDP cases) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:Because the line at the end was picked up by later decisions as a justification for SDP. Trust me. I'm going over this case now.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 19:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT) | :Because the line at the end was picked up by later decisions as a justification for SDP. Trust me. I'm going over this case now.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 19:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: Then describe the SDP cases, whatever that is. The Loving case is irrelevant, and should be deleted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 00:04, May 7, 2007
"AmesG also had substantial input to this article: Substantive due process." --I am mightily inmpressed! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Loving v Virginia
Why is there a long discussion of this case, when it didn't even involve substantive due process? One line of dicta does not justify it. RSchlafly 19:35, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
- Because the line at the end was picked up by later decisions as a justification for SDP. Trust me. I'm going over this case now.-AmesGyo! 19:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
- Then describe the SDP cases, whatever that is. The Loving case is irrelevant, and should be deleted. RSchlafly 20:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
