Well, now! I do believe I detected a note of defensiveness in your response. I'll take that to mean that I struck a chord with you in my comments about your intentionally misleading posts.
Plus, I said explicitly that they found it a states' right violation, plainly meaning that the state right of rape victims to sue was being impinged.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Such victims can take full advantage of STATE laws to sue the perp. A NATIONAL law to that effect exceeds the bounds of the Constitution. Of course, that wouldn't matter to you, though.
Again, your posts are characterized by their misleading and obfuscating wording. I'll admit that most LAWYERS would know that a Congressional act that takes away the right to sue means that it takes away that right at the NATIONAL level, eg., in National Courts, not necessarily State Courts. And, I'll grant you that people on this thread are knowledgeable enough to make that distinction. But, I seriously question if most people really know the differences in jurisdiction between National Courts and State courts. In your typically confounding manner, you try to confuse the issue.
I really appreciate your concern for me. In the immortal words of Roger Miller, "It's nice to learn that you're so concerned about my health. I wish you had your good luck charm, and I had it too, whacka do, whacka do." Heh, heh. And I'm armed.
But don't worry. Only the American Gestapo could get me across the Mississippi river. When you're ready for your Montana Dude Ranch vacation, just let us know. We'll show you a real "wild west" vacation, complete with cattle drives and gunfights. Sissy. |
