Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 10:46:37 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      PS lose sanity pill?

>From:         TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET
>
>Jamie,
>
>The logic czar !  You make me blush.

Well, then there's hope for you, as there was for Thrasymachus.
(_The Republic_, 350d: "And then I saw something that I had never seen before:
Thrasymachus blushing.")

>Hate to repeat (this has a lot with why you and I don't communicate
>too well), but ...
>
>Continue your readings of condensed Court cases and bend and stretch
>the original issue at will.

Hee he. You really are taking the Brett-emulation thing to heart,
huh? Like him, when faced with refutation, you bounce back
blissfully to "Jamie bends and stretches," though notably
without an inkling of exactly which things I am allegedly
distorting.

Also a surprise: though I noted explicitly that I had read
all of Casey, and I quoted at length, and offered to send
the whole of the opinions to anyone who asked, PS for some
odd reason claims (again, falsely) that I read "condensed
Court cases"!
I suppose this must all be part of PS's elaborate sense of
humor.

>I am - as WELL advertised - silently, meticulously collecting a nice
>little list of cites for you.  They will all be presented at once. I
>will walk you through step by step since multiple arguments and issue
>s seem to throw you off a bit.

I am delighted by "multiple arguments." But, PS, YOU have offered
only a single claim, namely, that the Supreme Court will strike
down laws on the ground that they are unworkable. More and more
little citations are fine, but so far you don't seem to have
understood the cases you cited.

> Maybe I will be kind enough to give
>you page and line numbers for all of them too.  I'm not sure you will
>be able to reference things with you 7-11 guide to the Supreme Court,
>but I am sure that you will do the best that you can.

The 7-11 guide to the Supreme Court? Which guide are you referring
to? The University of Maryland's ftp site for Supreme Court
opinions? Or is this more mindless name-calling? Or more humor?

>In the meantime, enjoy impressing others with your surface argumenta-
>tion.  I am slow, german, like to be thorough.

Just for the record:

PS claims that the S Ct. strikes down laws because they are
unworkable. In support of this claim, he sent me to a line
in an opinion in which the word "unworkable" appears. When
I found that line, it turned out that the Court was saying,
NOT that any LAW was "unworkable" nor that unworkability
would ever be grounds for annulment, but rather that the
"unworkability" of some rule that the Court itself delivered
in precedent would be one of the criteria for overturning
the precedent.

So, readers will be sure to judge for themselves which is
"surface argumentation": to skim through cases looking for
the word "unworkable," or actually to read the cases and
figure out what the Justices were talking about.

>And, if you like, rest in your odd belief that the time spent in a
>well researched answer is evidence in and of itself that you have
>shown someone to be completely wrong !  Ha Ha Ha!

Oh, hey, good argument, PS.
"Jamie has researched his answer well, and appears to have refuted
my claim. In reply, I offer the following: Ha ha ha!"

>                          Ha! Ha! Ha!
>
>                    Ha! Ha! Ha!
>
>            Ha! Ha! Ha!

PS, you have developed your new style of argument to an art form.

> The LOGIC czar !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Himself,
as always,

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU