Skip to main content

View Diary: South Dakota Moves To Ban "ALL" Abortions (271 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And i answered that (none)
    I view the question as irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  You can choose to debate on merits or not at all.  Who I voted for, or didn't vote for is irrelevant to the discussion of Roe or Casey.
    •  Yes, it is absolultely relevent (none)
      This is described as a Democratic blog.  If you are not here to help Demcorats, then that puts all your assertions in a certain light.  No one saying yo can't comment.  For many, they may assume that you are trying to be part of a big tent.  I think you are trying to hurt us.

      If you are trying to be coy and won't tell us your true colors, then all of your assertions come into doubt.  Not all of us have the ability to track down and verify all your talking points.  This is especially true when you are holding yourself out as an expert witness on constitutional law matters.

      Your intentions go to trust--and how much we can trust what you are representing.  We have to go on trust to a certain extent.  We can't, or most of us can't, track down every single point you make.  That you refuse to drop your mask shows that you know this too.

      Bias, counselor.  You know it.  You want to preserve your ability to masqurade as a Democrat.    

      •  I don't think I am trying to (none)
        help or hurt anyone.  if you notice I do not provide political advice or strategy suggestions.

        I am expounding on my views of constitutional law.  If you track back through my posts, you will see that they are by and large limited to that area (with some exceptions).  

        Because constitutional law is separate and apart from politics, it makes no difference who you voted for.  (As a reminder, Earl Warren was a Republican while Frankfurter and White were Democrats).  Feel free to disagree with my conlaw analysis, but keep it apart from politics as they are really not one and the same.

        •  Separate and apart from politics? (none)

          That's the phoney line that Federalist conservatives like you use to impose your "objective" values on everyone else.

          Tell me there is no "value" decision in what constitutes a "reasonable" search or seizure, or "cruel or unusual" punishment.

        •  More bullshit (none)
          You are here trying to influence the debate but unwillng to come clean on your true loyalties.

          You are trying to sell people here on the foolsgold of the Republican stealth/incrementalist strategy.  By not telling us you are a Republican partisan, you being deceptive.

          What is it with conservatives and secrecy?  Just tell us so we can have an honest debate.  An honest debate requires that everyone's biases be put on the table.  You are not willing to do this completely.

          •  And I am telling you that (none)
            my biases is only to the originalist interpretation.  I do not care about the party affiliation of a person who engages in proper constitutional interpretation.  So give it a rest
          •  Nonsense (none)
            We can have an honest debate about the meaning of the Constitution without reference to party labels.  (Earl Warren was a Republican as is Justice Stevens.  Justices Frankfurter and White were Democrats).

            I am not trying to sell a strategy.  I am trying to "sell" the proper ConLaw interpretation.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site