>>>>>>>>> You're using the absence of cases alleging freedom of
>>>>>>>>> speech in economic speech cases as proof that there is no
>>>>>>>>> freedom of speech in economic speech cases. ?When in
>>>>>>>>> reality, the more reasonable conclusion is
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> there is free speech in these cases, which is why there
>>>>>>>>> are no court cases about them.
>>
>>>>>>>> Unless you happen to believe a right is like a piece of
>>>>>>>> steel like the gun nutters believe and can be stored
>>>>>>>> indefinitely without use in a drawer, yea, sure.
>>
>>>>>>>> But if you believe "use it or lose it" applies to rights
>>>>>>>> then clearly the absense of court cases should be telling
>>>>>>>> enough.
>>
>>>>>>> But of course I gave you both an example of a little-cited
>>>>>>> right that didn't lose its force
>>
>>>>>> Or have much significance to fundamental freedoms either.
>>
>>>>> We'll add American history and Constitutional law to the list
>>>>> of things you're clueless about.
>>
>>>>> The example came from the Bill of Rights, legal eagle.
>>
>>>> Griswold is in the Bill of Rights?
>>
>>> Have you read the court's decision?
>>
>> The court's decision is in the Bill of Rights?
>
> Your lack of understanding of American jurisprudence is astounding. If
> the decision is based on the constitution, it has the same force of
> law.
>
> Does it hurt to be this stupid?
>
>
>> No _wonder_ you cannot brag about any decisions you won in federal
>> appeals court.
>
> Actually, as a practicing prosecutor, I have handled over 1,000 cases,
> and have never had a conviction reversed on appeal. You're 1 for 1?
> Good for you, amateur.
>
>
>> Here, I'll toss in some exclamation points to make you feel at home:
>>
>> ! ! ! ! ! !
>
> Does anyone understand what Bret means when he does this?
I looked back at my replies to his posts and found I used an exclamation
mark once. Maybe that's it.
>>
>> Bret Cahill
