Good idea! How about ‘unconstitutional’?
“No! Stop that! It’s unconstitutional!”
You know dissenting SCOTUS opinions sell for 3 cents on eBay right? With free overnight shipping.
I’m sure he would! At that point, I would have a couple of options:
-
“Hey thanks person who knows more about laws and stuff. Maybe I’ll reconsider my opinion or do some research learn more about the topic”
-
“You immoral, puppy kicking conservative monster! Of COURSE the court made a mistake! The only reason you think it didn’t is because you and your poor people hating conservative friends don’t follow your OWN Jesus rules and would watch the whole world die a painful death before admitting the court made a mistake! Burn in hell!!! AAAAHHH!”
Which one do you think I see more often?
also, number 2 may be a slight exaggeration 
Oy. OK, here you go. But hey, that’s just an opinion, man!
Now I need a constitutional!
Maybe I’m not following you. ISTM that, in a pleading before the Supreme Court, “this is un-Constitutional” can be understood to mean “we wish you would rule that this is un-Constitutional” in a way that posting on a messageboard does not imply.
Regards,
Shodan
Or it could mean, “According to our understanding of the constitution, this violates the constitution.” Given the word’s appearance in countless other uses where no decision has been rendered (including pleadings before lesser courts), I think that’s the far likelier meaning.
Whatever the hell you do - don’t use that one with Bricker. Because he’ll make you cite case law, chapter and verse, and it’s hard to do that thru the ball gag.
Regards,
Shodan
We have officially crossed the line of derpiness beyond which I refuse to follow. Good luck, amigo!
Not sure if I just got sympathized with or called derpy, but okay!
Not to mention the way those fuzzy pink handcuffs make researching case law so much more difficult.
(I’m of the impression that our linguistically confused Japanese reptile monster is female.)
A claim is falsifiable. An opinion on the constitutionality of a law is not. Even a Supreme Court Justice’s opinion.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Could you provide an example or two of Bricker saying that a decision was wrongly decided, where he did not add “in my opinion” or “I believe” or words to that effect? Because I make an effort to read him, especially on legal issues, and I cannot recall any.
Or better still, somewhere that he said something was un-Constitutional, even though the Court had ruled that it was. TIA.
[/QUOTE]
I poked at Google for a couple minutes after dinner, but the threads I’m looking for seem to have hit the archive and gotten mangled. Between that, and the overwhelming number of hits for ‘Bricker’ and ‘unconstitutional’ - I don’t have time to sort through that shit. Happily, I was able to dig up something to respond to you on this point, Shodan, that I stumbled across.
Bricker, to my surprise, calls Plessy v. Ferguson wrong, without qualifying it as an opinion.
Found plenty of verbal abuse he has dished out in Great Debates, of course, but nothing directly on point in the ten minutes I could spare. I didn’t realize how much the archives chopped up the posts, and the determination of which ones are in the archive seems kinda random.
The word “wrong” is not the word “unconstitutional.”
I am certainly willing to call it wrong. I am willing to call lots of things wrong. Like you were wrong, in this most recent (paraphrased) exchange:
GOOFY: Just search! Bricker has said all over the place that things are unconstitutional when the law went the other way! Just search!
ME: Then why don’t you find one?
(hours pass)
GOOFY: The Google is messed up, and threads are archived! But look at what I did find!! Ha ha! He said a decision was WRONG! That’s . . . just the same . . . as. . .as . . .
(sound fx of gong)
CHUCK BARRIS: Jaye P Morgan, why’d you gong him? I loved his act, but then I like rancid meat!
Hey, your reading is getting better! Try reading the post of Shodan’s that I was responding to.
For someone arguing that words can have multiple definitions, you’re picking a strange battle here.
A claim is defensible. A claim is not necessarily falsifiable.
Folks who are being absolutists (“constitutional” is like “delicious”! No it’s not, it’s like “Microsoft certified”!) are missing the point.
Words can have multiple definitions, absolutely, but saying the expression of an opinion is a “claim” is a new one on me. Maybe you’re just ahead of the dictionary curve on this one, but I’ve not run across anyone using it that way before today. I mean, you can believe that purple means spicy, if that floats your boat! Just don’t hassle people who use it to mean the color.
Pretty ballsy talk for a guy that just insisted “constitutional” was subjective as “delicious.”
Oh for Christ’s sake. Before I continue, can you tell me whether you’ve noticed my multiple assertions that whether something is constitutional is more objective than a simple opinion? Because if you haven’t seen that, I’ll proceed one way, and if you don’t understand that, I’ll proceed another way, and if you just don’t give a shit, I’ll proceed a third.
Meanwhile, Google “constitutional claim” or “claim of unconstitutionality” and read the many court cases containing these phrases, see if you can figure out why the word “claim” is so often used regarding constitutional issues.
Not to sidetrack us into yet another semantic hole, but can something really be said to be “more” objective? Isn’t that like “more” unique? Objective and subjective isn’t really a spectrum, the way I see it.
So short answer, the third way looks to be your closest option. I saw your assertion - or, perhaps, ‘claim’? And I do not agree and you have done nothing to convince me.
Yes, claim does have other meanings. It crops up around gold miners as well. But this messageboard is not a court. People in great debates are not making legal claims to be evaluated by a judge. If you want to use the word that way, that’s fine - but then we’re talking past each other.
If they are asserting that a given statute is unconstitutional, then yeah, they really are.
I know this frustrates you because it means your uninformed opinion can’t enter the playing field with the same vigor that assertions supported by citation to legal authority can.
My advice is to just realize that there are some things you can’t do. I’m 5’ 10"; an NBA career was never to be my destiny. But I never insisted that the location of the three-point line was a matter of opinion in order to help my chances.