Is Lord Jim Really An Idiot? I Don't Think So.

[Rick]

OK "density" was from Back to the Future.

The rest was pretty straight forward...

[Andrew D]

Yes, my response to you was straightforward, and you missed an essential part of it.

In your bolding, you conveniently omitted "the Court's (mis)construction of the Compact Clause".

I did nothing more than criticize the Supreme Court's construction of a constitutional provision. So what? How is that being "mean and nasty" either to Big RR or to Joe Guy?

Law professors across the country criticize the Supreme Court's constructions of constitutional provisions all the time. But forget about law professors.

Supreme Court Justices criticize each others' constructions of constitutional provisions all the time. Look at some dissents in constitutional cases: Criticizing other Supreme Court Justices' constructions of constitutional provisions is exactly what those dissents exist to do.

And ordinary people criticize the Supreme Court's constructions of constitutional provisions all the time. One would be hard-pressed these days to find someone arguing in favor of the Court's "separate but equal" decision.

So in the face of my straightforward concession that, in their dispute with me over the Compacts Clause, Big RR and Joe Guy were correct, you offer nothing but my having criticized a decision of the Supreme Court. You offer nothing by way of my having been "mean and nasty" to Big RR or to Joe Guy.

And you wonder why I think that your entire criticism of me is off base?

[Rick]

I don't wonder that you think it's off base, I would wonder if you agreed.

Yer posts by and large make you come off as a pompous ass (mean and nasty if you will), you do absolutley nothing to compell anyone to think otherwise (even with a nice wine post).

I'm gonna leave it at that cause otherwise it's just a dog chasing it's tail.

[Andrew D]

I am confident that most posters here will give your opinion all the weight that it deserves.

[Big RR]

Yes, my response to you was straightforward, and you missed an essential part of it.

In your bolding, you conveniently omitted "the Court's (mis)construction of the Compact Clause".

I did nothing more than criticize the Supreme Court's construction of a constitutional provision. So what? How is that being "mean and nasty" either to Big RR or to Joe Guy?

Law professors across the country criticize the Supreme Court's constructions of constitutional provisions all the time. But forget about law professors.

Supreme Court Justices criticize each others' constructions of constitutional provisions all the time. Look at some dissents in constitutional cases: Criticizing other Supreme Court Justices' constructions of constitutional provisions is exactly what those dissents exist to do.

And ordinary people criticize the Supreme Court's constructions of constitutional provisions all the time. One would be hard-pressed these days to find someone arguing in favor of the Court's "separate but equal" decision.

So in the face of my straightforward concession that, in their dispute with me over the Compacts Clause, Big RR and Joe Guy were correct, you offer nothing but my having criticized a decision of the Supreme Court. You offer nothing by way of my having been "mean and nasty" to Big RR or to Joe Guy.

And you wonder why I think that your entire criticism of me is off base?

I will say that I have never felt Andrew was being mean or nasty to me; maybe I have a higher tolerance for behavior that bothers others, maybe I have never been at the end of the sort of barb that is being complained of, but I find interacting with Andrew (and most people here) enjoyable.