This story is unavailable.

Interestingly you’ve spent innumerable column inches engaging in name calling, but you made no substantive arguments against what I originally asserted. One would think that if you were as knowledgeable as you hold yourself out as being, that you would be able to make at least one salient point.

One of the foundational principles of evidence law is relevance. Your name calling, falsely attributing ideas to others, and other tangents have no relevance to the instant issue — namely, power asymmetries preserved by inconsistent SCOTUS holdings. If you’re not willing to come up with at least one argument against what I’ve asserted (preferably with case citations), then you are basically engaging in middle school name calling.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.