2) I entirely agree with the existence of the electoral college. My only qualm with the 2000 election is miscounting of the votes within Florida. We are a nation of 50 republics in a perpetual federation, not a unitary autocracy, and I’m very happy about that.

3) The rights of a minority are not taken to the absurd extreme. Protection of the minority can only be asserted in court when there is a legitimate constitutional basis for the claim. We established a constitution and quickly added a bill of rights to ensure that protection in specific instances. The rights of the minority are in no way absolute.

1) Yeah, but they didn’t mean for it to go to a god-denying, short sighted, pin-headed elite guild of non-working professional philosopher Gods, did they?

2) I am well aware this isn’t a democracy. The left spat about the obsolescence of the Electoral College in 2000. I’m glad we still had it. CNN had to be reminded of it’s place, and all that.

3)Minority “rights” extended to an absurd extreme will return us to a monarchy. Each man is a minority of one. If I were forced to choose the lesser tyranny, tyranny of the majority is much more palatable than tyranny of the minority.

I’m not arguing semantics. I proved I was no anti-Semitic by looking up shyster. I’ll take an apology.

Ref? I got him on the shyster thing, no? And the constitutional stuff IS all arguable, isn’t it?

How about this, lefties:” Scalia and Thomas and Roberts, Oh my!(ala Dorothy), Scalia and Thomas and Roberts, oh my! repeat…

Let’s go do green instead of fighting about who won(I think I did and you think you did, and like in youth soccer today: Everybody won!)

To make things easier to respond to, I’ll make you a short list of outstanding issues:

+ The Founding Fathers made sure not to give the people direct control of government.
+ A constitutional republic is not the same as a democracy, we are the former, not the latter.
+ The judiciary’s role includes the protection of the minority against the whimsical majority.

Please respond to these points so that we may debate the issue proposed in the original article. Thank you.

I’m not sure in what world you think you “won” this debate. You have yet to respond to any of my actual points and instead insist on arguing about semantics.

Your ignorance of basic American history and constitutional thought is quite evident here — and is likely why you have yet to say anything in response except joke about anti-Semitism and avoid any actual discussion.

You didn’t rebut my post — you only argued semantics. The “rights era,” I term I used for convenience, is meant to denote the rapid expansion of rights protected by the Constitution under the Warren Court. Hopefully that clarifies things.

With fondest thoughts,
Noah

From yours: ““rights era” of the Supreme Court only began in 1953 with the Warren Court, and ended, at the very latest, in 1986.” I guess this is the part where you think I ignored your post. I didn’t take that class, and if I had I would’ve probably fought with the professor about 1/2 the time and got a “C”.

As I pointed out (with extreme irony) in my overlapping post, I find it curious that there is any “era” labeled a “rights era” that IS A SUBSET of the history of SCOTUS the rest of which was NOT a rights era. Pisses me off.

There. I’ve rebutted with extreme unction all of your post.

Effectively.

I’m waiting to hear from ART on intentionality, He’s probably still at class.

Way to not respond at all to my post, though.