When you make statements such as...
"Nonsense, the decision was legally indefensible EXCEPT to the shameless or delusional"....
This is a debate forum. There is actually a theory and a set of rules to having a debate. You don't get to simply debate impressions of things. When you make an assertion, you must be prepared to back-up you that assertion when challenged. If you can not, then the assertion is considered invalid. Consider yourself so challenged.
Unartful dodging. In response to your demand to see law credentials I asked you "where and when did you get your puffed up idea that having a view of the law requires a law degree and law practice? What are you, forum qualifications inspector? This is a thread discussing a legal opinion rendered by the Supreme Court, I didn't notice a self-appointed gate-keeper."
Your obliviously tone deaf reply? Another another lecture telling me what I get to say or not say according to your "rules", followed by an non-germane discourse on what "must be backed up"...yada yada. One supposes that your red herring lecturing response is just your way of confirming to all that "Yes, I am the forum qualifications inspector and a gate-keeper".
You have ZERO base of telling us its "indefensible" because you do not know. Really, you are telling us you have superior knowledge of the law and Constitution to each member of the Supreme Court. How arrogant!
LOL...now your telling me I have personal character fault? Is this also a part of your "rules" of discourse on a debate board?
I have an unimpeachable basis of telling you its indefensible, because I've read the most salient points of Robert's argument and its junk law. And because he has extensive knowledge of the law, he must know it. And what I am telling you is that I have a superior and honest view of the Constitution to that of six of the justices (who are, as often as not, flim-flamming sophists and carny barking scammers).
The only way you can back up an assertion of something being "legally indefensible" is with expertise. In this case, real and credible knowledge of the law. Either you have that knowledge yourself (real and credible because you have a law degree) or can produce third party expertise (an real and credible attorney that is considered an expert in Constitutional Law) or your assertion is nothing but a shallow, meaningless, uninformed impression, which I suspect that is what is .
Rubbish. Two plus two equals four - irrespective of whether the claim is made by a paper clip stringer or a Phd in mathematics. All it requires is the knowledge and reasoning abilities to see the obvious.
I don't need to quote some "expert", not when I have already dissected the opinion and found it long on twaddle and short on seriousness. Like 2 plus 2, it took no special skills and minimal knowledge to see that.
You want to debate on DP....be prepared to defend yourself. I love calling people out on their meaningless, uninformed impressions as they are a waste of everyone's time and unworthy of the cyberspace they occupy.
Apparently you love calling others impressions as meaningless and uninformed, without providing a parsley sprig of proof...which, come to think of it...would make your "impressions" equally meaningless and uninformed.
So, produce your credentials or your third party expertise or re-state by telling us this is your most humble opinion (which is a polite way of telling us its just an impression.)
So produce your credentials or third party expertise that tells us "that having a view of the law requires a law degree and law practice?" and that makes you "forum qualifications inspector"?
People who live in glass houses...(heh).