SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: D. Long who wrote (1691)5/31/2003 1:26:29 PM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (1) of 793782
 
Well, you still have decided not to make your case. I gather your argument rests on the accuracy of the original post Bill made from the Princeton guy. My point, to repeat myself far too many times, is not he got the case law wrong. If I were arguing that then you would be correct. My argument is, rather, again to repeat, that he is moving the deck chairs around to make different case law relevant.

As for the Griswold case, that is the relevant privacy case, the one the Roe v Wade decision drew from.

It should be apparent to you by now, that this conversation is going nowhere. I've withheld my usual posting notion that when someone goes personal on me, I post one more time returning the personal attacks and then walk away from the conversation. I haven't done that in this instance because I thought it might be possible to at least agree to disagree civilly. You still seem to think, however, that the best conversations are ones in which you can taunt rather than talk.

Conversation over from this end.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News