Re: Sandra Day O'Connor on the upcoming US dictatorship

<<And so Supreme Court justices are judged by the sensible members of
the
public (which excludes lawyers) on the kind of social policy their
decisions embody and promote. Only fools such as you are obsessed with
the
mechanics, the legal basis. >>

Jeezus Christ. Yeah, only fools, like people who fucking play in
orchestras, without which you'd have no goddamned music, you fkin
idiot.

<<It is not about statutes,
precedents, or any of the other arcana - those are merely the mechanics
of
how it is done. >>

What a complete non-sequitur to the discussion. What a magnificent
field of strawmen you've erected, Your Duncicality.

<<PS Note that I said that a Supreme Court is about making social
policy.
It is NOT, except incidentally, about the law. The law is merely the
"how," a "how" which can be interpreted however necessary to support
and
promote whatever social policy is wanted. This point is obvious to
anyone
familiar with the Court's history. >>

Um, since FDR?

<<And the public also understands the role of the Supreme Court and its

justices far better than you. That's why and how it assesses justices
such
as O'Connor as moderate and Scalia as fascist, despite any legal
niceties.>>

The public, like you, is of infantile comprehension. That is how they
listen to dog*** and say "nice music" and a person such as myself can
say, the 1st chair, 2nd violin is out of tune and the conductor's
pacing was unimaginative. IOW, you are a dilletante with no more than
a passing understanding of things, just like the American Public, to
whom you now bow down as the arbiter of the "measure" of a Justice.
The public, like you, lacks both the intelligence and the knowledge to
even make an informed statement on the matter. Only the opinions of
experts, such as myself, count. This is why fucking expert musicians
judge classical competitions, not laypeople.

Your field of strawmen is the equivalent of American fking Idol. You
are about kitsch and pop, and all things lowbrow.

People MISTAKENLY assess the moderation of O'Connor. I will not
dispute anybody's characterization of Scalia, because it is not worth
my time, but his SOCIAL or LEGAL position, however you wish to try to
obfuscate the issue so's to avoid the discovery of your inexcusibly
superficial knowledge of the issue, is NOT as "people" "believe," and
neither is O'Connor's. Consequently, her statements on the impendment
of any "dictatorship" should not be taken seriously. She is and always
has been a facilitator of it. In fact, I have demonstrated such with a
very cursory recitation of her voting record on a PRIMARY
Constitutional Amendment. Her stances on the 5th, 7th, and 8th, you
know, those Amendments MOST directly inhibiting dictatorial or fiat
actions by the government, are quite similar. She is not, nor ever has
been, a moderate. Her "social" or legal position, like your IQ, has
always been more adequately described as tepid.

Trav

.