Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I am breaking my promise to myself and posting here again.

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Dude, don't make me do this. You really don't want me to prove to you AGAIN that you don't know what you're talking about. Thomas is not and has never been a swing vote, except on a miniscule number of cases. He is the justice most likely to vote with Scalia, to the point that their votes correspond on well over 90%. When you say that Thomas is a swing vote, it shows that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. At all. You might as well call Scalia a swing voter, but I'm sure that you know JUST enough about the court to know that you suspect that he might be on the conservative side.

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

You're both jaded and completely unclear on the concepts being discussed here. He's said that the matter is settled. Scalia has actually come out and completely refuted your arguement here - that he's not going to act as a Republican but as a strict jurist. He has not said anything about a movement to amend the Constitution, he's said that the matter is settled unless there is a change to the document that would require revisiting the matter.

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Christ, Will, I don't know what to do with you at this point. You've shot all of your theories so full of holes that there's barely any theory left. You're left with a handfull of holes now. There are checks and balances in place. They work. The court isn't packed with Republicans. We've given you example after example after example. I guess that I'll sit back with cynthetiq now and await the patented Willravel "agree to disagree" closure. But I've got to tell you that, on this particular subject at least, you really seem completely lost on a lot of the basics. Has your account been hijacked by someone? And I'm halfway serious about that question.