Fake Marine in full uniform at his High School reunion is found out by classmate & arrested With pic

[Bricker]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

It’s because you write things like this, Bricker, that I am prepared to call you the most overrated attorney on these boards.

And Mom said I’d never amount to anything.

This is a pretty fatuous functionalism, even for you. When the Court in Lawrence can write such things as “Bowers was wrong the day it was decided [by the Supreme Court of the United States],” then surely someone as august as yourself can admit that the Constitution has meaning separate from the pronouncements of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government. It is this fact that gives rise to our most important lawsuits: where there the law speaks with more than one voice.

I won’t pass on the quality of the poster’s argument that you are addressing, but I will share that I am a little surprised by your embarrassingly facile argument above.

Utter crap. And I’m not just saying that because of your little love note. I’m saying it because it’s utter crap.

The Supreme Court can indeed say that the Supreme Court was wrong, because they have the ability to overturn their prior decisions; to impose a new meaning of the Constitution on the country as a whole. The Fifth Circuit can say what it likes about Fifth Circuit opinions, as long as there’s no Supreme Court precedent to the contrary. Those are functional statements, in which the meaning of the Constitution is actually changed or clarified.

But when we discuss what the Constitution means here, we have some choices. We can proclaim, as though pronouncing some deep religious conviction, that the Constitution means X, despite the utter absence of any supporting caselaw, and indeed despite the presence of contravening caselaw. That’s fine. I’ll even allow it can be in GD, which is, after all, the place for witnessing.

But witnessing is all it is. It’s more correct, precise, and meaningful to argue that the Constitution SHOULD mean X; you at once acknowledge that the weight of precedent is against you and make clear that you are arguing for a change, not stating an extant rule. When you declare self-righteously that the Constitution means X without such disclaimers, you’re being either obtuse or disingenuous, your little foray into different voices notwithstanding.

You are simply witnessing: offering your unsupported personal views as fact, and inviting others to join your beliefs based on those facts.

If that’s the system, then states may criminalize abortion, because there’s nothing in the Constitution that says they can’t. Period. Roe? Casey? Shut up, I’m not listening, they’re all wrong, and what I say is right. End of discussion.