Interesting facts about Droopy:
---He doesn't believe that Article III of the Constitution, the role of the judiciary outlined in The Federalist, and the common law tradition the United States comes from mean that case law really is law. Somehow he thinks that the Constitution is a self-executing document.
has become, unfortunately, in many cases a slow, creeping rewriting of the constitution through incremental precedent, and with the general present moral and intellectual state of the contemporary legal profession and judiciary, this has become the very point of much special interest litigation.
Droopy, I'm sorry to interrupt your parade of ignorance yet again, but case law
is a methodology. It is the way judges follow precedent in Anglo-American law
. It has absolutely nothing to do with politics or value judgments. Your babbling here is analogous to saying that because there are some socialists who write literature, literature is a socialist field.
Tell me about the overreaching power grab by tyrannical judicial activists in Troxel v. Granville
, for example. Or Boys Scouts of America v. Dale
---He does believe that the LDS Church can authoritatively interpret the myths that ancient Hebrews wrote about their tribal god.
I know you really enjoy this vulgar, intellectually primitive Madalyn Murry 'O Hair-like baiting and mockery, but all it does is just make you look more like the terminal end of a horse than you did the post before.
Still waiting for you to copy and paste some posts of mine that prove what my political leanings are, Droopy. Until then, please continue to admit by your conduct that "liberal" means "someone who disagrees with me."
And makes me look like a horse's ass to whom? To a reactionary religious fanatic who parrots Heritage Foundation talking points and thinks that padding his posts with unnecessary verbiage makes them appear to be substantive? Wow, that certainly will keep me up at night.
I've never said that you don't understand constitutional law, at least as presently understood within many of our law schools.
I have never seen any reason to believe that you have any idea what is taught in law
school. However, you are continuing to pile up evidence that you do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about, since you think lawyers base their understanding of law
on what they read in law
school, versus what they learn in practicing law
Another point in the "you have no idea what you are talking about" column is that you insist that all lawyers---or even most lawyers---have the same political leanings (or even have any particular political leanings).
What I've said is that you have little understanding (or, more likely, have no intention of understanding) the constitution. You're entire past gay marriage schtick is evidence enough of that.
I look forward to your addressing the equal protection argument, Droopy. You can start by demonstrating where in the United States your fantasies about "traditional marriage" are codified.
Two very different things, the constitution and constitutional law, depending upon one's approach to "constitutional law."
And I can't wait to see you demonstrate your understanding of the scriptures by explaining what they mean independently of the aegis of the LDS Church.
I wonder who it is you think disputes that the Constitution itself and case law
interpreting the Constitution are different things. I'm sure you will tell everyone, instead of continuing with your uninformed babbling.
(Note to readers: the above should not be taken as a suggestion that the U.S. Constitution is comparable to Mormon scriptures.)