"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

People who constantly deal in hypotheticals are the ones who lack the
intelligence or maturity to process the real world.

So, you're saying that Supreme Court justices lack the aforementioned
intelligence or maturity?


No, I'm saying YOU do.

You said "People who...", and unless you want to start slicing and dicing,
that includes me, you, and everyone else. You made an all-inclusive
statement.

Now that we've established that, you're ready to understand that
hypotheticals are constantly used by the best and the brightest. In Supreme
Court transcripts, the justices will go on for hours, tossing hypothetical
situations at lawyers to test new ideas. Various military & police entities
have hired movie writers to come up with hypothetical scenarios involving
security issues. You don't like hypotheticals because, as in this
conversation, it puts you on the spot. You have to think and come up with an
answer. Oh well.



However, since my copy of the Constitution contains neither the word
"gasoline", nor "global warming", nor "energy", nor "oil", nor
"environment", my oath of office would compel me to do nothing.

Really? Your president suggests things all the time which he thinks
would make for a better country and a better world, and most of these
things are in no way related to his constitutional mandate. It would be
unpatriotic to not look out for the best interests of this country in
every way possible.

If the term "your president" is supposed to imply that I either voted for
or support the policies of George W. Bush, you are entirely mistaken.

Hey, if you look, walk, and sound like a duck, don't be surprised to be
called a duck.

Now, onward: Are you capable of answering the question, rather than arguing
about tactics?