51. Blarty Blarckleblart wrote:
However, what YOU are aguing is exactly what the new nominee has been esposing. Written laws be damned, I’m going to rule for the person I feel has ’suffered’ more in my own opinion based entirely on his skin color and heritage.
Really? Can you point out where I argued that?
Peter writes: Yes, I can. Right here.
18. Blarty Blarckleblart:
So how do y’all feel about the fact that the unaccountable Supreme Court invalidated the decision of the elected city officials of New Haven? That the Court “legislated from the bench”?
As I have pointed out, ad nausium now, the Supreme Court ruled the way it did because both the city of New Haven and the Appeals Court took it upon themselves to decide one color skin was more important than another and BREAK THE EXISTING LAW, and YOU are saying they were right in doing so, therefore you are admitting a person’s skin color or heritage should have more bearing on a legal case than ACTUAL LAW.
I will now be ignoring any further posts you enter on this thread, because I am growing tired of your lunacy and doublespeak and you are not contributing anything of value to this discussion.
