We are discussing the brief and whether or not Rush was characterizing it correctly. We are not discussing your interpretation of my motivations, of which you have NO idea. I do not discuss YOUR motivations, and I would appreciate the same courtesy.
I want to know why Rush, who is supposed to be LOGICAL, cannot discuss a legal interpretation without ranting. I am quite able to do so, and I don't see why he cannot.
I do not pretend to be an attorney or any sort of a legal expert. I do understand the nuances of Supreme Court decorum, having paid attention over the last few years.
Are you telling me that Ted Olsen, Solicitor General, was overruled by underlings? Or are you inferring that President Bush, who is not an attorney, overruled Ted Olsen on constitutional law? I do not understand your comment, and would appreciate an explanation.