“Where did I imply legal right?”
See next sentence
“And why should I correct something that’s Not wrong!”
Becasue according to you now, it wasnt addresing your question.
Here is a recap:
ME: “The court interprets the law. That is their role.””
you: “Who says?”
Me” The constitution”
you “What does the Constitution say that they can misinterpret the law anyway they feel?!?”
Me :”Article 2. you now say misinterpret earlier you said “I happen not to have a problem with that interpretation, but what I just posted was to make a point” Which is it? At any rate earlier you asked “”Who says” regarding The courts interpreting the law. This is in the constitution. You dont get to decide (though of course you can have an opinion). but interpreting the law is PRECISELY the courts role.”
YOU: “Again they have No right, call it what you want – interpret or misinterpret, to change the basic normal understanding of the law!”
ME: “you couldnt be more wrong. That is PRECISELY the job of the courts in general, and the supreme court in particular. Namely to interpret the law…”
YOU: “Courts have No right to change the basic meaning of the law!
Even if they have the right to interpret the law!.. “
ME: “It is the courts job to determine what “reasonable accommodation” means Kudos on you for fianly admitting that you were wrong on that point, …””
YOU: “I never said that they didn’t have the right! What I said it’s just like in “
None of this makes sense if you didnt mean “legal right” at this point in the conversation you said “moral right” and then later said it was rhetorical
“The rhetorical question was going on “What right”, not what moral right!”
why didnt you say so during one of the first 10 or so responses on that specific question?
“”You really can’t argue that it’s not Antisemitism because you don’t even know what the definition or the interpretation of the civil rights law is!!!””
Of course I can! because in my secret court case the court ruled that whatever I say is correct.
“Their definition of “undue hardship”!”
which is…