Justice O'Connor: U.S. must rely on foreign law

WND ^

[tdadams]

Don't stir this up again. Look at the time stamps. I was writing #75 before or at the same time you were posting #74. It looks like you're just agitating now.

[Kay Soze]

"In his dissent in the Texas case, Scalia said: "The court's discussion of these foreign views (ignoring, of course, the many countries that have retained criminal prohibitions on sodomy) is ... meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since this court ... should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans," he said quoting the 2002 Foster v. Florida case."

Why would somebody so well versed in US Consitutional law say that using foreign views was "Dangerous"?

[BenR2]

Don't stir this up again. Look at the time stamps. I was writing #75 before or at the same time you were posting #74. It looks like you're just agitating now.

/////////////
You are funny: You may call me mendacious, accuse me of agitating, demand apologies, and never once seem to see that you are promoting this debate every bit as much as I am.

By the way: I DID check the timestamps. I figured 15 minutes was gap enough for you to have seen what I posted.

If in fact you had FAILED to see the apology I posted in #74 until you had posted your attack in #75, then common courtesy would have had you acknowledge my apology and apologize for your unintentional "late hit."

Why do you demand an apology when you are too graceless to acknowledge one.

[tdadams]

I'll gladly acknowledge your apology and thank you for it.

By the way: I DID check the timestamps. I figured 15 minutes was gap enough for you to have seen what I posted.

If I had posted a one sentence reply, you'd have a point. But it was seven paragraphs, and as I already told you, I began writing post #75 before your #74 was posted. So how should I acknowledge a post that wasn't there when I began writing mine?

To continue on this thread would just encourage quibbling, so I'll leave it at that.