That was his A game.

It was Justice William O. Douglas who wrote that as a new justice he was advised by then Chief Justice Hughes that the easiest way to write a judicial opinion was to first decide which side should win and then gather the precedents to support that decision.

As an example of your point, a few years ago somebody actually made the argument that the Austrian born Governor of California could be elected Vice-President, or even President. The crux of the argument was that notwithstanding the text of the Constitution, there was no precedent interpreting the “natural born” qualification for President. Until the Supreme Court ruled, why couldn’t he run? (In fact I just saw a post on the BBC website that reported the Nicaraguan Supreme Court threw out the express presidential term limit constitutional provision).

The basic problem the Constitution existing only within case law is that it makes the Supreme Court a permanent constitutional convention. But as one justice noted: “The Supreme Court is not final because it is infallible, it is only infallible because it is final”.

Finally, as to the issue of state constitutional Bills of Rights, the states may confer greater individual liberty than required by the Federal Constitution.

In much the same way that a rapist being sent to prison has exercised control over his victim, a jury, a judge, a prosecutor, police, and jailers. At the end of the process, the rapist can gloat about how much power he has–while confined to a cell for many years.

That’s not the point I was talking about. I argued that the states only accepted the bill of rights as applicable to them once they were forced to.

But what he actually said was:

Firstly, yes the states extends the bill of rights to citizens. They do this via state law that reflects federal law based on the 14th ammendment and the Civil Rights Act.

And:

I don’t think you’re right, actually, but I didn’t have the time to do the research to do my point justice.

Meaning that he was pulling his claims out of heart, not his brain, and realizes that he can’t defend his position without doing some, you know, reading.

I’m right and I know it but I don’t know why. And I win because you’ve all managed to prove me wrong with actual facts and links but don’t realize I’m right!

Ah, the enlightened, progressive mind on display.

Moho need not apply.

Uh, no Clayton

He didn’t agree with you. He pointed out that the federal courts have come around to the originalist viewpoint. That’s hardly an argument for the power of precedents.

That’s not the point I was talking about. I argued that the states only accepted the bill of rights as applicable to them once they were forced to. As for the rest, when you’re right, Klayton, you’re right. I don’t think you’re right, actually, but I didn’t have the time to do the research to do my point justice. And when that happens, I’ve the integrity to admit that I’ve lost. Enjoy the sweetness of it, Klayton Kramer [I leave off the K for savings], it must indeed be a rare moment.

As for the rest of you clowns, I will take your gloating as proof positive that I’m generally in pwnership of you all. Thanks for letting me know.

Then indeed you are a blessed individual. As there is much joy in your life.

I’ve seen Moho do better at both. I suspect haste and multitasking.

Yours,
Tom DeGisi