Quote:
Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
Given that I was discussing a previous PP case, it was hardly unambigious, particularly since it was mentioned earlier in the PP press release.
He wrote a concurring opinion becase he refused to endorse the policy of the Supreme Court, only to uphold it.
|
And what does that prove? Do you see where I'm going with the suggestion that your potential argument here is weak at best? You're trying to read into his intent, his heart and soul, and what he would do given a hypothetical situation. In this situation, he respected settled law, he announced his respect for it even though he may personally have reservations. Personal reservations do not equal judicial opinions.