Comment: I disagree. Constitutional

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: The point I am making is the (see in situ)

I disagree. Constitutional

I disagree. Constitutional law has NOTHING to do with common law. Common law is used to deal with situations not dealing with the Constitution. Where people lose their cases in front of SCOTUS, IMO, is when they take their eye off of what the Constitution says and try to win with obscure, senseless, immaterial decisions made by dead SCJs over 200 years. WTF cares??? This isn't "he said/she said". This is what the document says.

If I were to argue a case in front of SCOTUS, I wouldn't say what I thought the document says, I wouldn't argue what someone else thinks it says, I would simply tell them what it ACTUALLY says and treat them as if they knew absolutely nothing. I wouldn't cite a single case as precedent, because precedent only matters in common law. And we have a TON of bad precedent. As soon as you validate precedent or stare decisis you've lost. That stuff is immaterial.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"