How can you call him “obviously correct” if he doesn’t present his reasoning? That dissent is legalese for “Fuck the 14th, he’s a damn Chink!”, nothing more.
Hi, Bricker! Thanks for coming to play! Have some apple cider.
I find myself terribly confused. On one hand, you seem to be referring to a certain cadence of speech, often punctuated by italics. On the other hand, silver nose. However, as this cider is delicious, I have decided instead to focus on delighted slurping as I watch **Bricker **work his magic.
Didn’t anyone notice Wong Kim Ark was Chinese! It’s so obvious he was a robot sent from the future. Another robot was sent to put the birth notices in the paper. And the last robot become our president.
Open your eyes people.
There’s just one teeny tiny problem with relying on the dissent: it has no weight of law.
And in fact, the dissent concedes as much:
Yes. That is what it does. Even if weconcede the dissent’s view that this is the “first time,” despite the conspicuous lack of citation in support of that claim, the dissent cannot and does not claim that the construction offered is beyond the power of the Court to make.
In other words, the dissent is saying, “You’re wrong,” not “Your decision is of no legal effect.”
This thread was mildly entertaining what with Morella the Moron and all, but now that Bricker and Jimmy are going back and forth with real information, it’s become interesting. Thanks, y’all!
But now it’s all serious. Can’t they at least swear and insult each other? At this rate the mods will move it to GD.
Well, right. They are nuts, after all.
But I’m not sure what you’re looking for here even in a universe where I really hold these beliefs. Of course it doesn’t have the weight of the law; that’s why it’s a dissent. The point I’m doing my best to make is that, just as the dissenting justices said “you’re wrong” with respect to the historical narrative supporting that particular interpretation of “jurisdiction,” your modern day birther is saying, essentially, that the weight of the law is and has always been wrong.
Nobody who goes to the trouble to concoct this kind of constitutional argument, as far as I can tell, actually thinks that a pro forma application of existing federal statutes would result in a declaration of Obama’s ineligibility. They’re saying there’s a latent defect, so to speak, in the way all these cases have proceeded, stretching all the way back to the 19th century, which hasn’t ever been an issue because no president before Obama actually ran afoul of the “appropriate” rule. But he, of course, does. Regrettably so.
Also emacknight’s butt stinks.
Liberal posters and liberal posts far outweigh the number of conservative posters and conservative posts on this board, and, while I don’t know for sure, it’s possible that liberal posters make more claims about the law than do conservative ones. And then there’s the question as to whether liberal and conservative posters err about matters of the law in equal proportions.
So, do you have a cite showing that liberal and conservative posters post about legal matters in equal numbers? And do you have a cite that they err in regard to the law either in equal numbers? If not, then you have no cause to expect Bricker to critique them in equal numbers.
Hush up.
We’re listening to the adults now.
She said “equally,” not “equal numbers,” which one can clearly infer to mean that errors, wherever found and regardless of by whom committed, would be subject to the same electron microscope.
ETA: Thanks, Bricker, for jumping in (again) and educating us all.
No kidding. This thread has been ground to it’s knees with Supreme Court cites. Although, I have to admit, “Kwock Jan Fat v. White” is about the coolest court case I ever heard. It sounds like a 4chan topic.
Yes, I do know why that prase didn’t appear, because I paraphrased. Are you familiar with what the term “paraphrase” means? Try looking it up, along with “nonsensities.”
Then look back on the flaming pile of turd you posted here to see if you should be questioning someone else’s honesty.
SFG clearly criticized Bricker for correcting liberal posts disproportionately to conservative ones. The only way she could know if he was doing that would be if she had: knowledge as to the number of posts regarding legalities between the two sides; knowledge of number of factual errors committed by both sides; and knowledge that Bricker was responding to liberal errors disproportionately percentagewise.
And I’d be very surprised if she had factual answers to any of these three questions at the time she made her post. In fact, I’d be surprised if anyone has the answers to them…or could determine the answers to them.
How come you never mentioned this?
You’ve inaccurately paraphrased Shot From Guns. The key point was that Bricker is fond of pointing out how balanced he is. He likes to remind us that he has defended Obama and criticized Bush. So the challenge was thus put forward to “put his money where his mouth is.” Show that he’s balanced by applying his legalese nitpicking to a conservative troll.
Bricker then gave **Morella **the smack down she so richly deserved. Proving both that he is a man of his word, and that logic/integrity trumps partisan bullshit.
Also, Jimmy Chitwood called Chief Justice Harlan’s a concurring opinion, not a dissent.
Somebody smarter than I will need to extrapolate the implications this has in the matter of the odor of Mr Chitwood’s butt. 
Harlan concurred with Chief Justice Fuller’s dissent.
It smells like basil.
:smack:
Time for kaylasdad99 to go back to reading for comprehension class.
Also,mmmm, basil (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
raison d’être. There is an accent circumflex over the e.
Just while we were on the subject of nitpicking…
Actually, it is a bullshit question, because both were about ending slavery. The purpose of the 14th amendment was never to make citizens out of anchor babies, or a president out of a Kenyan-Indonesian Muslim.