Well, you can’t get your dog pregnant, so there’s no need.
So sad we banned all the idiots who would come in saying “But what if you could?” and completely derail the conversation. It would be more entertaining than Bricker.
“Reasonable” opens an even more yawning chasm between the technical and normally understood definitions of the word.
I proposed “rationalized basis” – the arguments advanced as points of law are often, as in this case, textbook examples of the common plain-English understanding of the words “rationalize”, “rationalized”, and “rationalization”.
That’s reasonable.
In other news, a 500-pound patient suffering from joint problems and shortness of breath was heard to complain that the eleventh doctor he’d seen told him to eat less and exercise more, just like the first ten.
That’s pretty clever, actually.
The line between clothahump and bricker blurs more and more every day.
I was referring to “rationalized basis”.
I’d have a hard time taking health advice from someone who only eats fish fingers with custard myself.
Well, yes, it has. But it also has been found to NOT be a quasi-protected classification, and subject to rational basis.
For myself, as a federal district judge, I think I’d find as a matter of first impression that sexual orientation triggered intermediate scrutiny. But if I were in, say, the Seventh Circuit, then I couldn’t.
You’d expect him to be twice as careful about a heart-healthy diet, wouldn’t you?
And I agree with their reasoning.
But of course their decision conflicts with Massachusetts v. US Department of Health & Human Services, 682 F. 3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012).
And of course it conflicts with Supreme Court precedent in the matter of Baker v. Nelson.
So then your repetition six times of the mantra invoking rational basis analysis seems like even greater pompous-ass legal pettifoggery than before. I hesitate to say that you’ve outdone yourself, but I do suspect your pedantry, or indeed your pompous pedantic pettifoggery, is boundless. Puerile and pusillanimous to boot.
Those ridiculous comparisons wouldn’t be required under intermediate scrutiny, either.
You’re perseverative as well.
Like methylchloroisothiazolinone, I am.
I believe that’s a preservative.
Being a preservative is different than the quality of being perserverative. I’m hopeful that this is some kind of Brick-joke.
Not a joke, exactly, but an illustration. See, I was apparently completely clueless that “perserverative” was a different thing than “preservative.” And that meant that my attempt to make a witty, urbane comment to show what I knew fell flat, as opposed to being witty or urbane. Because my obvious ignorance of the basic information completely undercuts any attempt at humor or insight.
Right?
No, I actually found it funny. I’m just so unaccustomed to being amused by anything you say that I experienced the sense that something was wrong.
It’s not you, it’s me.
Wow, some people are masters at wasting their own, and everyone else’s, time.