[spinestein]

[Why can't we use this ruling to our advantage?]


Because it is a "loose constructionist" argument, as in; the Constitution is a "living document" designed to be interpreted and reinterpreted according to the current social mood, to produce a legal precedent to support any conclusion that has already been decided upon, because the end justifies the means.

If we want to use this to our advantage (which we certainly can do) we will have to embrace this sophist way of thinking.

Remember that a "living document" adapting to the needs of our times is just a misleading name for a strategy to infringe on the Bill of Rights and our freedoms for our own good.

[CivilWarguy]

Spinestein, you hit the nail on the head! Of course Kennedy's opinion is laughable, but those who eviscerate his tortured "logic" should be aware that "logic" had nothing to do with his ruling. He decided the case based on his emotions and personal biases, then wrote an opinion to obscure the real reasons he decided as he did. Sorta like the Red Queen in "Alice in Wonderland" who proclaimed "Execution first, trial afterwards" (paraphrase).

[CanGyrene]

You have hit the nail on the head, friend. Again, Canada represents an excellent example of just how far overboard - and how deep into the muck - the twisted and self-serving logic of legal arrogance can sink. There are NO Traditional Rights in Canada anymore (as in Free speech, self-defense, free choice) due to the FACT that the citizens have simply given up and allowed the Canadian version of the Ginsberg/Kennedy/Stewart element to ride roughshod over them. Take heed, Americans!

[OkiMusashi]

Got it. Thanks. It seems to me that the "Living Document" gang will generate contradictions every time they open their mouths. I was just trying to figure out a way to capitalize on this one.

Like, if they can "Creatively Interpret the Constitution" then The People should be able to "Creatively Interpret the Courts Rulings".

Hey, THEY started it. :)

Just wondering,

Mush the TroubleMaker