Rollo Tomasi wrote:Droopy wrote:See the constitution of the United States, and then let's compare this to Loving.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Loving interprets the U.S. Constitution. D'oh!Marriage is not a right in any constitutional sense, according to original intent of the authors of the Constitution ....
The Supreme Court in Loving said otherwise.The decision in Loving is quite clearly just as much a judicial fabrication as the reasoning and decision in Roe, and while you are certainly correct that it sets legal precedent, its also logical and philosophical nonsense, and legal nonsense when contrasted to the original text and intent of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is set up in the Constitution to interpret the Constitution (no other branch gets this responsibility). Your issue is with the Constitution, not the court decisions.
Rollo subscribes to the "conjure **** out of thin air" school of jurisprudence.