http://xrlq.com/2006/02/07/roger-mahoney-constitutional-scholar/ Politische Kommentare mit Snarkenremarken Mon, 14 May 2012 18:16:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 http://xrlq.com/2006/02/07/roger-mahoney-constitutional-scholar/comment-page-1/#comment-46988 Pat Patterson Sun, 12 Feb 2006 02:20:11 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/02/07/roger-mahoney-constitutional-scholar/#comment-46988 Mahoney's using the famous Dean Wurmer defense of the indefensible. But then a bishop is expected to see things that the rest of us might not. Mahoney’s using the famous Dean Wurmer defense of the indefensible. But then a bishop is expected to see things that the rest of us might not.

]]> http://xrlq.com/2006/02/07/roger-mahoney-constitutional-scholar/comment-page-1/#comment-46817 The Pathetic Earthling Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:22:17 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/02/07/roger-mahoney-constitutional-scholar/#comment-46817 That's no penumbra. That's in the Constitutional Oort Cloud. That’s no penumbra. That’s in the Constitutional Oort Cloud.

]]> http://xrlq.com/2006/02/07/roger-mahoney-constitutional-scholar/comment-page-1/#comment-46613 pendelton Thu, 09 Feb 2006 01:40:05 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/02/07/roger-mahoney-constitutional-scholar/#comment-46613 Sorry. I left out the definition of intellectual flexibility: the ability to think white is white and black is black unless you find it more appealing to believe that white is black and black is white, in which case white really is black and black really is white if you look closely. Sorry. I left out the definition of intellectual flexibility: the ability to think white is white and black is black unless you find it more appealing to believe that white is black and black is white, in which case white really is black and black really is white if you look closely.

]]> http://xrlq.com/2006/02/07/roger-mahoney-constitutional-scholar/comment-page-1/#comment-46612 pendelton Thu, 09 Feb 2006 01:33:01 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/02/07/roger-mahoney-constitutional-scholar/#comment-46612 xlrq: Buddy, you're way behind the curve here. The U.S. Supreme Court has already found the sodomy laws unconstitutional. So how far are they from finding it a right? And further, isn't it just a step from there to finding it a duty to provide accommodation? If they can condemn private homes in Kelo for the needs of commercial businesses, then why not condemn someone's rear end for the use of those most sorely in need (Andrew Sullivan comes to mind)? You obviously don't have the brilliant insight in combination with intellectual flexibility and moral fluidity of liberals concerning the "living" constitution. xlrq: Buddy, you’re way behind the curve here. The U.S. Supreme Court has already found the sodomy laws unconstitutional. So how far are they from finding it a right? And further, isn’t it just a step from there to finding it a duty to provide accommodation? If they can condemn private homes in Kelo for the needs of commercial businesses, then why not condemn someone’s rear end for the use of those most sorely in need (Andrew Sullivan comes to mind)? You obviously don’t have the brilliant insight in combination with intellectual flexibility and moral fluidity of liberals concerning the “living” constitution.

]]>