Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Even if it was, it doesn't refute what I said about judicial activism, nor prove that judicial activism is a good thing." Only in your world. Your entire premise re: judicial activism is so slanted towards your way of thinking as to be dizzying.
Originally Posted By X-san Yes, it is. As SuperDry proved beyond any doubt. And if you REALLY think he didn't (I don't believe so, I think you're just too prideful to be gracious about it), then go back and explain why, point by point, like he did. I would be very interested in reading that.
Originally Posted By X-san You're the one who made the statements and asked the questions, Douglas. The fact that you got a reply you weren't prepared for doesn't change the fact that you were serious flaws in your assertions. Unless, of course, you are able to refute SuperDry's comments by actually countering the facts that he presented to you with some of your own, point by point, and explaining why they're in error as SuperDry so eloquently managed to do...you're spending an AWFUL lot of energy trying to avoid that, but the truth is your theory on what "judicial activism" means is fatally flawed, as SuperDry has clearly shown (unless you can prove otherwise). I'm open minded on this one, if you can make some valid counterarguments, point by point, I'll be the first to admit that *I* was wrong in backing him up so enthusiastically. Unfortunately, I haven't heard any yet.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm open minded> I've seen no evidence of that over the last few years.
Originally Posted By X-san I am, are you? At the very least, I've certainly chimed in and admitted that I was in error from time to time when someone has brought up a valid point or concern that I hadn't perhaps thought of yet, or a new way of looking at things, or new information. Amazingly, you consider yourself above reproach. Particularly in this case, it's not reflecting well on you.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I am> I've seen no evidence of that over the last few years. <Amazingly, you consider yourself above reproach.> No, I don't.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 More obfuscation and diversion. To get this back to the thread where it really belongs: What is not factual about SuperDry's statement that the right to not be segregated in public education did not exist prior to Brown, and after Brown it did? Hmmm? If that's supposedly not a fact, show us how it's not a fact.
Originally Posted By barboy Not to jump on the Douglas bashing/inquisition bandwagon but I have an honest curiosity: DouglousD, do you feel that the Supremes in 1803 usurped power at the expense of the individual states, national legislature and chief executive? If yes, then was that usurpation harmful to the basic checks and balances of our political system?
Originally Posted By dshyates I really hope Doug doesn't think we are ganging up on his perspective. All I hope is that Doug reflects on his convictions. I respect Doug a lot. And I think he makes us better people in that we examine our convictions. Doug, keep on keepin' on.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <More obfuscation and diversion.> No, obfuscation and diversion is more like when you claim things happened differently than they happened, or seize on a irrelevant side argument rather than addressing the acutal issue. <What is not factual about SuperDry's statement that the right to not be segregated in public education did not exist prior to Brown, and after Brown it did?> What is factual about it? How does SuperDry's opinion about an opinion (even the Supreme Court Justices don't claim their opinions are facts) become a fact? <If that's supposedly not a fact, show us how it's not a fact.> How about you show us how it's a fact?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <do you feel that the Supremes in 1803 usurped power at the expense of the individual states, national legislature and chief executive??> Well, President Jefferson sure did. Who am I to argue with him? <was that usurpation harmful to the basic checks and balances of our political system?> I haven't really given this idea much thought, or read too much about it. I'm not sure it really matters, since it is what it is. It's not like we're going to take back that "usurptation" anytime soon.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I really hope Doug doesn't think we are ganging up on his perspective.> I know you're ganging up on my perspective; you gang up on every conservative. It's expected, and I don't mind. What bothers me is the derision, denigration, and dismissals that are too often the response to conservative posts. The double standard also bothers me - conservatives are constantly told they must "prove" their opinions are correct, but liberal opinions must be "proven" incorrect. It's tiresome, and I'm trying to quit posting in WE for that reason. But I couldn't let an incorrect accusation against me stand.
Originally Posted By X-san ***What is factual about it? How does SuperDry's opinion about an opinion (even the Supreme Court Justices don't claim their opinions are facts) become a fact?*** Except that SuperDry didn't offer his opinion of the ruling. What he did was point out the FACTS as they emerged as a RESULT of the Supreme Court decision, compared to the facts as they existed prior to the decision. I can really appreciate the argument made by someone that you don't seem to understand the difference between fact and opinion (or else you're purposefully misspeaking for some reason).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Except that SuperDry didn't offer his opinion of the ruling. What he did was point out the FACTS as they emerged as a RESULT of the Supreme Court decision, compared to the facts as they existed prior to the decision.> If that were the case, you could answer the questions I posed in post 92.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Well, President Jefferson sure did. Who am I to argue with him?" Well, then quit disagreeing with him about the separation of church and state.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Well, then quit disagreeing with him about the separation of church and state.> Never have.
Originally Posted By X-san This question? **What is factual about it?** SuperDry already answered what is factual about it. Before the ruling, minorities didn't IN FACT have the right to not be segregated, whereas after the ruling, they possessed that right IN FACT. There is no opinion involved in stating those facts whatsoever. Matters FACTUALLY changed due to the court's ruling.
