@rgoodlaw Not valid. Stacking years of experience never is, given that much of the tenures overlap. That is not how statistics work. Such bovine fecal matter is a marketing trope, nothing more. Try again.
First, I don't like it either but expecting a radical change to the interpretation of an Amendment to the Constitution by originalists is a fool's errand. Second, there is nothing to "tank" given the Constitution's lack of regard for how anyone feels about this issue (see: f*ck our feelings). Third, there is already SCOTUS precedent for upholding the 14th, ironically about Chinese laborers in the 1890s. Fourth, good luck getting 2/3rds of the States to modify or repeal the Amendment, let alone agree on anything. Last, hope is never a viable strategy.
I usually agree with you Tim, but how we feel about the gaping holes in the 14th Amendment is irrelevant. There is already SCOTUS precedent for upholding this law, albeit in the 1890s and ironically about Chinese laborers. I have no appetite for the fair weather of supporting someone until they disagree. The cult does that, not us. ACB is an originalist (much like Scalia) so anyone having unfounded expectations of some revelation in Constitutional law is going to be disappointed, IMHO. I too wish it were different. It is not. We would have to modify or repeal the 14th Amendment; good luck getting 2/3rds of the States to agree on anything.
@QueenAnticommie Definitely babies. Can't do anything, sh*t and piss all over the place and just keep whining about everything. They need to grow the f*ck up. ππ€£
Much like Scalia, Originalist is more accurate. We can only support her when the law and how she rules on it concur with how we feel? This one is constitutional (see: f*ck our feelings) and there is already SCOTUS precedent. Very low chance SCOTUS suddenly changes the interpretation of an Amendment.
@JackLinFLL Still don't get why people swim in fresh water here in the Free State of Florida. Every lake, pond, river and spring has murder logs. BIG ONES.