Libertarian Discussion Forum Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Jim S who wrote (3697)	5/16/2000 3:29:00 AM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) of 13062

This is my last attempt. I said that the Court viewed the law as impinging on the state right of rape victims to sue. Impinging, in my dictionary at least, means "encroaching upon." This is exactly the core of Rehnquist's reasoning--it is unconstitutional because it encroaches upon states' rights. And you can't employ the Commerce Clause to do that. My one sentence on this--which expressed no opinion at all on the merits of the decision--obviously did not, and was not intended to, expound upon every nuance and legal theory addressed by the Court. Finally, and somehow most difficult for you to accept, is the fact that I agree with the opinion as sound jurisprudence, and would have no motive to characterize it negatively. I can really say nothing beyond this, as your hatred for New Yorkers appears to be blinding you to the very simple fact that you have made an error in your accusations. Perhaps this is the problem: I am not saying that you mischaracterized the decision, I am saying that you have erroneously accused me of something I simply did not do--i.e., negatively characterizing Justice Rehnquist's very sound ruling. With which I agree!!!!! (must I say it an 11th time?)

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next