or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Piobaire

Well, if we want to get into a pissing match the bolded is actually incorrect. Originalism is an overarching school of legal thought that includes both Original Intent and Original Meaning. So you are correct in that Scalia backed Original Meaning but incorrect in asserting Originalism =! Original Intent as the later is subsumed by the former.Feel better?
Or what some/many gun control advocates want us to do with the Second. Not only the original intent but also muskets.
I thought that was Rob Ford?
Well, there's intentionally doing this and then there's doing this by being an idiot. I highly doubt if it's the former being employed 99% of the time.
The issue I raised really had little to do if these folks followed their own supposed philosophy but rather with the folks that rejected them and their legal philosophy yet are ready to use it in framing their desire to limit gun ownership.Two wrongs, a right does not make. Anyone that rejects Originalism and it's alleged proponents, yet is all ready to use it when they see fit, is also guilty of an outcome-driven policy agenda.
The real question is three downs a field or four?
Trump is not an elected anything yet.You do realize my comment was not designed to be construed as literal? A 1:1 comparison, etc?
Well, this is actually interesting. Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch met on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport today. Hmm. What could they have been talking about?
We've been chatting how many years and still feel like you have to point that out to me? I'm hurt.
So they were idiot liberals too? Now all the pieces are falling into place...Also, and of course I'm not a fancy law-dog like you or Harv, but I thought they actually were but that means the Second probably doesn't say what the NRA thinks it says. So my observation remains valid as that's what the idiot liberals that otherwise reject Bork and Scalia argue.
New Posts  All Forums: