Ah, so you have not even read about what you are ****ing commenting on.
Only if you contort and strawman what I've said, but then again you've got your hackles raised so I guess that's how you're going to play it.
Shame on you, you can do better than this.
Ditto
So clear cut that the justices did not agree on anything beyond the outcome...
Gee...if only someone made a claim that the justices agreed on the same OUTCOME as opposed to the reasoning for that outcome
"similar verdict." <---- oh wait, that was talking about the outcome and not the reasoning
"issuing the same vote." <---- oh wait, that was talking about the outcome and not the reasoning
"both saying 'Nope'. " <---- oh wait, that was talking about the outcome and not the reasoning
Well ho-lee-****...someone DID claim they agreed on the OUTCOME. Yet you get on your goddamn high horse to say "shame on me"? Come at me with something other than this strawman **** if you think you're going to "shame" me into changing my mind. When I'm wrong about things I have no issue manning up on them, but like hell am I going to tuck tail and run because you want to get high and mighty battling a scarecrow. I don't know what toe tapping jolly ass two bit political hack who can't debate their way out of a wet paper bag you think I am but you sure as **** are confused about it Redress. You say I'm "better then this"? Then why don't you take two ****ing moments to step back, read what I'm saying, and ask yourself WHY someone like me may be bothered and asking such questions as opposed to immediately leaping forward to battle words I never wrote but you've imagined.
I know and understand full well that the Alito and Scalia types came to their conclusion for a different reason than the Ginsburg and Kagan types...that doesn't change the FACT that they all came to the same conclusion, that this action
WAS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. Which was my entire point. If my point had been about their
opinions then I would've said "opinions". I didn't. I spoke about the outcome. Regardless of whether or not you come at this from a judicially conservative or a judicially liberal manner, the
end result is the same.
NOT CONSTITUTIONAL
It is so glaringly not constitutional that you can reach that conclusion via the routes of both ideologies, to the tune of NINE TO ZERO.
Got any more strawmen and misrepresentations you want to throw my way in your effort to "shame" me? If not, how about you educate your own damn self before trying to lecture and "shame" me again.