|
I honestly don't know how to respond to your last question.
I mean, I'm not taking any one judge's remarks/decisions at face value so your premise is flawed. But aside from that, I'm synthesizing what I learned about the reasons for drafting a federal constitution, how that meshes with the need for state's rights, what that meant to the residents of those states, how the delegates appeared to have viewed the federal constitution from their writings/comments, how this relates to issues of federalism, how this has played out historically in our nation, and what a broad consensus of legal scholars have taught me and written (unanimous, to my knowledge; you have yet to provide me with a single legal scholar supportive of what you're typing here)...and finally yes, generally speaking, when the US Supreme Court Justices make a decision, it is uncontestable fact.
I think given all that, I refuse to be ashamed that my analysis rests on these principles and facts. It doesn't make me a sheep, if that's what you're implying. It's the way our legal system operates, to my knowledge. I'm not an anarchist when I wear this hat. How I professionally orient to this information is a seperate matter from how I might personally orient to the notion of marching on the government and burning shit to the ground, however...
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
|