On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 11:10:37 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

It is funny that a conservative judge who actually wants to read the
constitution is a right wing extremist but a liberal judge who makes
up words that are not there is a normal jurist. Maybe that is normal
in your world. There is a process if you don't like what is written
there. Amend it. You are not supposed to just bend the meaning to suit
your politics.
In that regard isn't that exactly the way you say they are twisting
bible verse?



The Constitution has been re-interpreted since its first printing. If
your conservative jurists actually read the Constitution, the 2nd
Amendment "right" to bear arms would only pertain to those in
well-regulated militias.

The part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed" is not as hard to defend as you ignoring
"Congress shall make no law" in the 1st amendment.


The bible isn't endowed with the rule of law, anyway, despite
conservative attempts to make it so. It's nothing more than a book
compiled from disparate scrolls in the third and fourth centuries and
retranslated many times.

I agree the bible is a compilation of many other writings and there
are different versions for each brand of those faiths that use it.
The first real test of prayer in school (Weiss) was based on whether
people needed to hear the words in the King James version versus one
used by Catholics.