The killing of an entire thread seems absurd to me, especially that one which was quite 'normal' as far as the level of insults was concerned.
Seems that you really want to derail another thread.
Do you want to discuss Atheism?
The one thing that I have discovered about the Supreme court that through history when deciding issues that it seldom makes definitive pronouncements
I think your memory is selective here, Arg. I would guess that the court makes "definitive pronouncements," whether for better or worse, in at least 99% of all the cases it hears.
... I was thinking of the Dred Scott decision...
A very unfortunately ruling, to be sure, but, from a legal standpoint, the "correct" one. Again, the court is not there to "legislate" (even though it sometimes does, in effect). It's there to interpret the constitution. At the time of that ruling, I think it was pretty clear that our constitution did not prohibit slavery.
This kinda goes back to the difference between positive law and natural law, Arg. In this instance you seem to be advocating the implementation of natural law over positive law.
That sounds good, but what does it mean? You have already said, as I recall, that morals are subjective. So, if that's true, the Dred Scott decision may be seen as a HIGHLY moral one, which did not serve to deprive honest, law-abiding citizens of their hard-earned property, eh?
a benevolent dictator; meaning me