Whatever ERO, you have nothing meaningful to say about this decision other than you think it’s wrong. Fine, you think it’s wrong.
You seem to think your moral/rational arguments carry more weight than a SCOTUS ruling. But they don’t.
If you want to contest this ruling, you can bring suit against it the next time a sex offender is found to have a “continued civil commitment.”
So why post?
My opinion doesn’t matter in this discussion. In this discussion, the only opinion that matters is the Supreme Court’s. And the SCOTUS’s reasoning is provided in the opinion.
So why post?
You don’t have to care, you simply have to obey. Although this really doesn’t even apply to you unless you’re a sex offender or planning on becoming one.
First of all, who set that rule?
Whatever ERO, you have nothing meaningful to say about this decision other than you think it’s wrong. Fine, you think it’s wrong.
You seem to think your moral/rational arguments carry more weight than a SCOTUS ruling. But they don’t.
If you want to contest this ruling, you can bring suit against it the next time a sex offender is found to have a “continued civil commitment.”
Again, we can look at “weight” as “who has the guns” or who can mount a rational defense for their actions. I’m 1-0 bloom, thanks for playing.
I’m wasting time until gamestop opens.
Whatever ERO, you have nothing meaningful to say about this decision other than you think it’s wrong. Fine, you think it’s wrong.
You seem to think your moral/rational arguments carry more weight than a SCOTUS ruling. But they don’t.
If you want to contest this ruling, you can bring suit against it the next time a sex offender is found to have a “continued civil commitment.”
It seems to me that his opinion against it has as much effect as your opinion for it. One wonders why you come to a place where opinions are supposed to be discussed to tell us, after giving your opinion on the matter, that opinions don’t matter.
Does this rise to the level of a performative contradiction?
You’re 0 for 1. The law doesn’t work on a rational basis, it’s all about who has the guns. If your “rational basis” mattered, you’d be the one making this ruling. Ah, but you’re not. Thanks for playing, come again.
I’m wasting time
I agree.
But I have lots of time to waste and I do enjoy thinking about the law.
But I have lots of time to waste and I do enjoy thinking about the law.
I wouldn’t call what you’re doing thinking. Indeed, your position seems to be that ideas don’t matter. They have the guns, you declare, without stopping to think that there is no law of physics that makes a man obey another. What matters are ideas, like the ones some are discussing here, the ones you say don’t bother discussing because they have the guns, the guns which are in the hands of the men who operate, unlike a chemical, on the ideas they have accepted.
Go tell Thomas Paine not to write Common Sense. Go tell the Apostles not to preach what Jesus told them. Go tell William Lloyd Garrison not to fight slavery. Go tell Elizabeth Cady Stanton to return to the kitchen. Ideas, you see, are worthless.
Who cares what you’d call what I’m doing crew?
You’re 0 for 1. The law doesn’t work on a rational basis, it’s all about who has the guns. If your “rational basis” mattered, you’d be the one making this ruling. Ah, but you’re not. Thanks for playing, come again.
Your right, it is a waste of time to talk to you. My purpose was to point out your lunacy for those reading who there might be hope for. You don’t have the guns either and are as much a subject of the state as me. Your argument boils down to a single logical fallacy.
Who cares what you’d call what I’m doing crew?
I don’t know, I have done no surveys on the matter. Why do you ask? And if I can bother you with a second question, why do you avoid the substantive points I raised?
But the guns are on my side ERO. So I get what I want and you lose. And when the guns are pointed at me, I just try to change the law. If I can’t I obey.
It’s a waste of time to talk to you because you’ve got your head lodged so far in a philosophy book that you have forgotten how the game actually functions. But I’m a generous person and I have nothing to do for an hour so I come here and remind you how the game works. 2-0.
@Crew, You have raised no substantive points in regards to the legal question.
Because it is what it is and it’s pointless to question it. The reasoning of a model citizen!
@Crew, You have raised no substantive points in regards to the legal question.
But you are arguing with me apart from the legal question, so why not address my points? Otherwise, it makes you look glib or even cowardly.
Oh by all means question the law. But don’t talk to me about morals and rationality, talk to me about the legal questions. Does the Congress have the power to make laws such as this concurrent with the necessary and proper clause? Yes, the SCOTUS has ruled that it does. Has the court ruled on this issue in relation to the broader issue of due process of equal protection? No.
Bloom, even if you stick up to the poor logic of “the law is the law”, it’s still quite clear that in this case the law contradict other laws.