Publius1787
Gold Member
- Jan 11, 2011
- 6,211
- 676
- 190
If you are using Scalia, say so...not everyone remembers everything in the decision word for word.
A statement standing defense is weak. Roberts' wrote out his reasoning and he cited and explained...you just disagree...but your claim is bogus...
Funny you've made the assessment that I haven't read The ruling while I was summarizing Scalia from the start. If I had noted so in the beginning I wouldent have had nearly the satisfaction as I do now.
Try and be coy. You are being a tool and playing games again. This time instead of going off on Soviets, Communists, leftists, collectives, you stumble upon :"Aha! I fooled you."
You were summarizing somebody. The minority opinion as if it were law and god's word.
Your summary must be flawed because to say what you have is silly and untrue.
Read Roberts' opinion...it IS the law
Fee - Penalty - Tax
Smilies, lol's, and words like "fooled" are all I need to see when taking into account the mental state and maturity of the person on the opposite side of the forum. Thy are self comforting gestures designed to comfort those who know their arguement is weak. The more often they are used the weaker their arguement and the more they rely on them in leu of a legitamet statement. Keep comforting yourself, your obviously going to need it. Let me know when you can live without and I will be the first to welcome you to the realm of reason and reality. Between logic and emotion, however, liberals have always been more fond of the latter.
Last edited: